




^6* 


& a? c\ 

e *° A 

?• v »«•*# r O 






o v 



» I •* 


' ^ ^ - 


* A'*'* 

L\K * «? ^ • ' 

»«< .aV ^ * 

* ^ %* 



> ^° ^ - Ir^cK°* ^ 

<v *?T'** f°° **. *•••••* ^ e ®4- 

O. ,C- .*/ r l'» > V .’*•» C\ 

\ V/ :KSfrv V,* \a< 


av 


• o 

♦ A.V * 


O 'TST' A 


V %$> - 





V«* 


.* A* 


• C? V- 

* «? ^ 

4 <L» % 

v* <a ’*••»• <Cr *o # *',7;* A 

4 > .*'•♦ ** , 0 * 0 • * • • *o > . "< 

* o 4* SacAft^ * V C- •rfSStyV. O 4 ^ ♦* 

” 0 ^ :im£y- *W .‘; ^ 

•* <5 -. 




O * **4 ""y J\ 

O *#M» . 0 ' 

• \/ -•Jfe': A/ :Mm-. \/ •’ 

_ .•■ /% -Wm. : /\ : -Hk-- ♦♦ > % '-swl ^ 

:t* <v <, 'f .?• ,c^ v *rfrr«* a <, 

A , *.» * 4 a> $ * • 0 A r t /« <t> 

/ \/ ,;«^*. %.<** 4gfe>-. V/ .< 



• ^ Qj 





% *> 


'\ ••^? /’ 'V *:«*' O o»''% -*w /'% 

* ts. ■$’ '&%£*/£•• <y .VJfV. .vVa" ^ /■ 

; ^ MPm ° *f :Mm' *£ *^W°- 

A 4 a g> ^ .»• • A <s *° • * * Jy *0, *< ;vT* a 

- 0 V 0 • l ‘ * ♦ A* , V » # qV «* • * 3 ^ . k * # 

^ ° .*€&*• % / V 0 , ° .V^'. %. ./ * ' 

, J.°v. «5 o A 

« % *>w.‘ *y cy ‘.w/ ')’ 

’ •* <?«, -»?•' ■?■ v N . ’ •'- p c. A ‘L^Lr* 

V ,-5." .V5S2V. -*U. Sjt&?/£» %■ y <fy ,1 

* %f '-tnW' *£ ' §B& 1 *X *** 

* fa ' $ , ^^ l ) ' oX V * fa ' •* ^ 

^ .•*'_** ■ < ^* ,c^ • • * * • .. ‘' •, , 0 ^ «““*■* 




’bK 






\V 

v »:*•- ^ a 

■• tf. ^ .^Va‘- ^ 

: W A 

a° vJ5t« % a * ~o .» 

, cr ,>ls$sw. ^ j-* ,WfeL’ o g .• 





*<y “^1P‘ . 

i. *°-nj *, 

J. . NV^J 1 • o **wP*\* -0 A % 

%u •-’■ a v .. V *•.»’ ,-»♦ ■=(. *..■.* a 0 V *.;.' 

\ \A :JB|: W • jfe' 

• ^ v \ °Sff** •SK*a , * , v ^ 



^ ^TTT* a 


A v - • fc # *« i ,0 > * • * • ♦ *0 ,1»». ciV e • • 

^ SjKt0&>,\ C 0 A 1^'. tr. . 0° .v-SSh. 


.... 


O • t 






O - 

? V * 1 * C* 



^ > $P ^ 

%* -0 o *• “k>«/—«- • 

*»’ a° v> *• -° <y 9^ • •»* • a 0 

-5> *> V s .«••. ^cv *<y 

. ^ A /aVa* % <y '' 

/\ /V VWV ^ v \ V 

V° ^ *'•••* A . < A -...• ,(&♦ 9s V7V?» A <f, 
•*—*«- ° ,** 9p_ c, 0 ’ V a 4 ,.‘V« 9* 





:• v ,4^ . 
•. '•+<? 



9> V 



• .<5 »° •v 

•’V* __ °9*.**"’** f 0 ° .. \'---■>- s v 

'll# /\ '-®R. : •* /\ V 

O’ '° • * * <0^ ♦Tfvf* A 'o.A (F ^> 

’ \ <?' •'J&i'* °o A '’'/rnL* ** C° .**• 

‘ •■ **«« »^mv- ^ :£S^\ "9ft0^ 


.• ^9ft 





>.° v •py|^’«' <5 9e. 

%*^v vS 1 / -o 

, 9ft. ^ - - 


• aV^^ a 



* A 

♦ a? ^ 


C V ^ 

■ O 





i°V 



o A** 

♦ V a , 

.V o A <. -’o.T 4 ' *7 > y?7 t ' A 

' .'■VL**. Qj ^ .•‘JJ* 9*. ,o- ,«»■••, % J> % t .‘».*» 9, 

••‘MJK* '£*%&' 9ft 0 < ;«^*. ’bv^ 

-ft .w» , : ^ °*ft V^R>* ., 

V J.0 »LVL% v % *'•«* *0 ^ 0 

V :®*; V ;’ ’A- V A; %A ;j 

A ^ '° • i *7 fvf* A <r^ '«. * * .6^ ^ 

%*\^S 9 %> o°* ^ ^ o° ^o 





%»v ^ fr 0- ^ A* f° 

V> 5/ f » • o„ ^ .0^ V 5/ # » * Oft, A v 

9ft. A* .>Va* 9ft ,•}► ,*^|tey. 9ft ^ *>Va- 9f>„ .* 

0 ^ #^V oviff * 0 *©1^3^* ftjV ^ V 



vs* 

O tV^ft 

^ % 

'o'A 4 A- ^ ♦'TTT*’ A 

6 ° • • ♦ *^b -0 V « k ' 4 ♦ *^a A Cy e * * • * **o at • 1 ' * ♦ *^a 



'o v 



, ’ 5,0 9#^ •,^^’’° 9* 

9„ A.0 .LVl'. 9> v »i*», tv A-. 

9<. o ,49 . VSftV . 9<. a9 4Va % 9^ ^ * 

9ft <9 9r-^ *^)M(*. 9ft ^ . 

v^> :5mms* , 4 . 9 , :^Ei^. .,v^ • 

/ J> \ 

\ ^ 'o”A- ^ 

' ,v^ \ c° .^wl% °o >' »c^ % o' . 












































LEAGUE 

the 

NATION'S 
DANGER ' 

A Study of the so called “ League of Nations ” 


By 


The Reverend Bishop 

THOMAS BENJAMIN NEELY, PL.D., LL.D. 


Author of 

Neely s Parliamentary Practice 
etc., etc. 


Philadelphia : 

E. A. YEAKEL, Agent 
1705 Arch Street 

copy §■ 



COPYRIGHT, 1919, 

BY THOMAS BENJAMIN NEELY 


v' 



AUG 30 !aib ' 

©CI.A53 0 6U9 ^ 


Recorded 


PREFACE 


As a man must have his own family so he must 
have his own nation, and, in its way, national life is as 
important as family life. It is also true that as a man 
should be more interested in his own family than in 
any other family, so he should be more devoted to the 
interests of his own nation than to those of any other 
nation. 

Today nationality is attacked by a modern dogma 
called internationalism, which means no nationality, 
and obsessed devotees prate about being citizens of the 
world as against being citizens of a country. 

Strange to say, America, the best country in the 
world, where man’s rights are most respected, and the 
individual has the best chance, is beset by these de¬ 
structive notions, which do not always come from the 
ignorant, and a crude and dangerous internationalism 
threatens American nationality. 

So it happens that we must recognize that the 
great issue in this land from now and on will be Amer¬ 
icanism which embraces the principles which have 
made the United States the foremost nation of the 
world. If there is anything that will overthrow Amer¬ 
icanism, it will check the progress of humanity, and 
overthrow the world. 

The country has had no such crisis since the Civil 
War, and it remains true that “Eternal vigilance is 
the price of liberty.” 

This book is written in the interest of America and 
the world, and treats of an insidious phase of the ad¬ 
verse movement. The world may be small among the 
great orbs, but it is too large to be governed by a 
political coterie or a small committee, and the United 
States is too large to be ruled by any power other than 
itself. 

Thomas B. Neely. 

Philadelphia, Pa., 

July 18, 1919. 





































CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface . 3 

I. The Proposed League of Nations. 7 

II. Comment on the First Constitution. .. 17 

III. Demands for Amendment or Rejection . 28 

IV. The Revised Covenant. 47 

V. The League Distinct From the Peace 

Treaty. 78 

VI. The Peace Conference Cannot Bind 

the United States. 88 

VII. Rights and Powers of the Senate . 92 

VIII. America's Foreign Policy. 102 

IX. What the League Really Is. 115 

X. The Mechanism and the Working. 138 

XI. The League and the United States. ... 158 

XII. Will the League Prevent War?. 172 

XIII. Alternatives. 192 

XIV. European Opinion of the League. 205 

XV. An American View. 211 

Appendix : 

The Revised Covenant. 220 


Index 


233 





























































’ 















I 


THE 

PROPOSED LEAGUE 

of 

NATIONS 

At the present time there is no “League of Na¬ 
tions,though the phrase has been on many tongues. 

A so-called “League of Nations” has been pro¬ 
posed, and a scheme has been drawn up; but it has not 
been adopted by the Nations, and the so-called league 
is not in operation and cannot legally go into operation. 

Up to the present moment it is merely a proposi¬ 
tion, and largely an abstraction, but which powerful 
influences are endeavoring to make an actuality. 

The latest great World War began in August, 
1914, and closed on the eleventh of November, 1918, 
when an armistice went into effect. 

After the armistice had been agreed upon, signed, 
and declared, preparations were made for a Peace 
Conference, composed of representatives from the 
victorious Nations, and in this conference selected per¬ 
sons from the United 'States were to take part. 

The invariable custom had been for the President 
of the United States to send to such international con¬ 
ferences distinguished statesmen who were competent 
to perform the work and guard the interests of the 
United States of America, but in this instance, to the 
surprise of a vast number, and in opposition to the 
judgment, fears, and protests of not a few, the Presi¬ 
dent appointed himself to be a peace commissioner 
and the head of the American commission at this 
Peace Conference, which was to meet in a foreign 
country, and in pursuance thereof, went to the seat 
of the said conference, and absented himself from his 
capital and country for many months. 


8 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


In doing this it was complained that he carried 
with him, so to speak, the executive mansion across 
the ocean and placed it on foreign soil, and under the 
jurisdiction of the foreign government, and also car¬ 
ried with him many officials of his administration, 
who were needed in the United States to carry on 
governmental business, while it was alleged that the 
Nation’s business in the United States suffered accord¬ 
ingly and greatly. 

It was a question how the same individual could 
be both president and peace commissioner, and how 
he could continue to act as president outside the terri¬ 
torial boundaries of the country over which he had 
been elected to preside. 

The Nation did not send him, Congress did not 
grant permission for him to go, and the law of the 
land did not compel or authorize his going. 

Some lawyers maintained that the action was 
illegal, that the abandonment of his country worked 
as a disqualification for presidential acts, and that 
under the Constitution of the United States the Vice- 
President of the United States succeeded automati¬ 
cally to the presidency and its functions. 

The President, however, went from his country 
and stayed a long time in foreign lands, claiming that 
the circumstances justified his course. 

The first remarkable thing in the relation of the 
United States to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 
was this unprecedented action and appearance of the 
President, and it seemed the more remarkable because 
the legal head of no other Nation sat at the peace 
table, as a member of the working commission. In 
the case of the other Nations the work was done by 
leading statesmen of the respective countries. 

As to the legal questions, we do not here attempt 
to decide, but merely to state some of them, as matters 
of history in connection with this great event. Doubt- 


THE PROPOSED LEAGUE OF NATIONS 9 


less the law points will hereafter receive treatment 
from the great legal minds of the land. 

The second very remarkable thing in connection 
with the Peace Conference is that with it was carried 
on the construction of what was called a “League of 
Nations. ,, 

This was not the necessary and legitimate work 
of the Peace Conference. The United States had not 
ordered the conference to do this, or empowered its 
peace commissioners to have this done at the Peace 
Conference, and it was not the true function of the 
Peace Conference to do this. The function of the 
Peace Conference was to construct a treaty of peace 
and to have it duly signed, sealed, and delivered. 

Nevertheless, a formulation, termed a “League of 
Nations,” was developed in the Peace Conference, 
the Peace Conference quite at the beginning having 
proceeded to the construction of this so-called “League 
of Nations,” apparently giving it precedence over the 
making of the peace treaty, and framed its constitu¬ 
tion or covenant long before it had completed the 
treaty of peace. 

It is a matter of fact and record that President 
Wilson, who had designated himself as a member of 
the conference, and had transformed himself into a 
peace commissioner, did in an address before the 
conference, open the consideration of the league 
question, and that he insisted that it should be kept 
to the front at the Peace Conference. 

Mr. Wilson has been very commonly supposed 
to have been the chief spirit in bringing about the 
proposed league, but much has been said that does not 
seem to be perfectly clear. It is true that he made the 
opening speech for it, but it now appears that he did 
not formulate the constitution or covenant for the 
league. Indeed, the President himself has stated that 
though an American plan was presented, it was re- 


10 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


jected by the Peace Conference, and that the plan 
adopted was British. 

The consensus of opinion is, that, nevertheless, 
Mr. Wilson very actively exerted himself to secure the 
adoption of a formal proposition for a “League of 
Nations." 

Some go so far as to allege that to get support 
for the league, there were conceded at the Peace 
Conference some favors to others, and they raise the 
question in the minds of some as to whether the giving 
of an important part of China to Japan, without the 
consent of the Chinese, was not one of the things done 
in the interest of the league. 

As to these things we make no assertion, but it 
is perfectly plain that Mr. Wilson was greatly devoted 
to the construction of the league and of having it 
adopted at the Peace Conference. 

It has been asserted, indeed, that French, and also 
British, governmental opinion was not at first in favor 
of this League of Nations, and that these Nations, and 
also Italy and Japan, made a study of the question as 
to a League of Nations, “to consider for themselves 
the alleged benefits and possible disadvantages"* of 
entering such a league. 

One British author, in an article entitled, “The 
Government and the League of Nations," which was 
printed in The Fortnightly Review, for September, 
1918, states that some months before the British Gov¬ 
ernment had appointed “a very well chosen commit¬ 
tee," as Mr. Balfour described it, to examine and re¬ 
port on a League of Nations, and Mr. J. B. Firth, the 
author to whom we refer, said: “The report has been 
drawn up, but its contents have not been divulged. 
Neither Lord Curzon nor Mr. Balfour alluded to it; 
they did not even say that it had been considered by 
the War Cabinet. ... If there had been practical 


*Dr. David Jayne Hill. 



THE PROPOSED LEAGUE OF NATIONS 11 


unanimity in favor of the project there could be no 
reason for reserve. ,, 

Mr. Firth also says: “By a curious coincidence 
the same official reticence is being observed in France. 
There, too, an authoritative commission, presided over 
by M. Bourgeois, was appointed by the Government, 
and issued its report last January; but it has not been 
published in France, and, according to Lord Curzon, 
no copy of it had reached the British Government on 
June 26th. Why this secretiveness, both in London 
and Paris?” Further this author says: “Although 
the report of the French Commission has not been pub¬ 
lished, it is an open secret that its judgment was ad¬ 
verse to any proposal for establishing an international 
force which shall be always ready to enforce the 
decisions of the league upon a recalcitrant member.” 

Then some light is thrown upon the British atti¬ 
tude by Lord Sydenham of Combe, in an article 
printed in The Nineteenth Century and After, for 
August, 1918, in which he says: “We shall not win 
the war by planning leagues of peace to meet cir¬ 
cumstances which we cannot yet foresee. Like the 
paper constitutions of Sieyes, they may prove imprac¬ 
ticable; but the Holy Alliance against the forces of 
evil remains, and when it is crowned with victory it 
can be turned into a powerful agency for maintaining 
the peace of the world. Then in some happier future, 
the vision of Isaiah may be fulfilled, and ‘Nation shall 
not lift up sword against Nation; neither shall they 
learn war any more.’ ” 

It is very well known that Premier Clemenceau 
was not favorable to the League of Nations, but later 
appeared to yield. The explanation is not hard to 
find. Doubtless President Wilson's wishes had much 
to do in modifying the judgments of the British and 
the French, as they considered that he was voicing 
the sentiments of the United States, a country to 


12 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


which they were greatly indebted and the assistance 
of which they desired to retain and have in the future. 

Doctor Hill, referring to the non-publication of 
the British and French findings, very well says: 
“There was, no doubt, however, an excellent reason 
for this discreet silence. It is the desire of the officials 
of both England and France not to wound the sensi¬ 
bilities of the Americans, who are credited with being 
the sponsors of the ‘League of Nations.' The British 
leaders, always without definition, but in a fine spirit 
of courtesy, took up the watchword, a ‘League of Na¬ 
tions'—for it was so far nothing more,—and Lord 
Curzon was able to say in the House of Lords, that 
opinion in England was ‘rather in advance of the 
opinion of any of our Allies save the United States'; 
and he added, that ‘if the British Government went 
ahead too quickly, or too abruptly, there was danger 
of a rebuff.' "* 

There are good reasons for believing that the 
thought and the time given to the league project, 
delayed the completion of the treaty of peace, for the 
treaty was not completed and signed until the con¬ 
ference had been in session for six months or more, 
while the league constitution was finished some time 
before that. 

Still at this date our interest is chiefly in what 
was done, and in the output of those months. 

The work of the Peace Conference was carried 
on very differently from that pictured by the popular 
imagination. The many representatives of all the vic¬ 
torious Nations, including those also who were merely 
on the side of those who won the war, did not sit 
together and go through all the processes of considera¬ 
tion, deliberation, and decision, in the presence of the 
public, and the newspaper reporters. 


^Present Problems in Foreign Policy. 



THE PROPOSED LEAGUE OF NATIONS 13 


The decisive work was really done by five, or 
four, or three, or, perhaps, two men. The Prime Min¬ 
ister of Great Britain, the Premier of France, the 
Premier of Italy, the Premier of Japan, and President 
Wilson were the five, but the Japanese representative 
seldom sat with the five, and often others were not 
present. 

Then when this little group had decided the 
affairs of the world, and the fate of Nations, the other 
commissioners were called in and they formally, tac¬ 
itly, or silently confirmed what had been done. So the 
League of Nations was made and passed at the Peace 
Conference, hardly as democratically as might have 
been expected after a great war for democracy. 

The first constitution of the so-called League of 
Nations was sent to the United States, and also 
brought over by President Wilson when he came back 
for the closing days of the Congress, which occurred 
in the early part of March, 1919, but it was not pre¬ 
sented to the Senate of the United States. 

Before this a great propaganda in support of 
the League of Nations was carried on by speakers 
and writers all over the United States, and it became 
even more intense after the first constitution or cove¬ 
nant had been printed in this country. 

One organization, it was said, had over thirty- 
thousand speakers holding meetings and speaking in 
every section of the United States, and it was plain 
that to carry this on required a very great expenditure 
of money that must have come from some large fund, 
or from contributions that aggregated a large amount, 
or from both, and people wondered why this was. 

In the session of the United States Senate, on the 
thirtieth of June, 1919, one of the senators charged 
that what was styled the league to enforce peace 
was carrying on a propaganda in favor of “the 
League of Nations,” and declared that the interna- 


14 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


tional bankers of Wall Street wanted the proposed 
league in order to “exploit the natural resources of 
Europe." This was Senator Borah, of Idaho, who also 
said that “the powerful banking interests of the 
country have seemingly organized for the purpose of 
putting across this treaty, regardless of its merits or 
demerits." So the report says, the senator “attacked 
the League to Enforce Peace for having spent hundreds 
of thousands of dollars in its campaign for the League 
of Nations. He read from the bulletin issued by the 
League to Enforce Peace, on May 31, 1919, to the 
effect that ‘big business men favor the League of Na¬ 
tions.' According to the bulletin, Senator Borah said, 
‘three-fourths of the money contributed to the support 
of the League to Enforce Peace came from business 
men.’ and the Senator said: ‘I have not made a state¬ 
ment here that was not made by that organization 
over the signature of the ex-President of the United 
States.'" 

These figures were not disputed, but, on the con¬ 
trary, a senator, of the opposite side, admitted that 
seven thousand persons had contributed an average 
of $82 for the league campaign, which would make 
$574,000; and the same day, in the daily press, the 
secretary of this league stated that one banker had 
contributed $5,000, and that other “men of that type" 
had given likewise, and that one business man had 
contributed $25,000, and, further, that there were one 
hundred and twenty contributors of $1,000 and above. 

It must seem very strange that the League to 
Enforce Peace carries on a campaign to support the 
League of Nations, which is a very different kind of 
an organization. Still it is comforting to know that 
these missionaries do not go at their own cost. One 
of the speakers is said to get as much as $500 in a 
night. We do not know as to that, but if that is cor¬ 
rect, then it is a paying operation, and the laborer 


THE PROPOSED LEAGUE OF NATIONS 15 


in the vineyard gets his hire Well, it is not all suffer¬ 
ing for the cause, that is the cause of the other sort 
of a league. 

Senator Borah had also charged that one of the 
leading newspapers of the country had been purchased 
to further propaganda in favor of the League of Na¬ 
tions, but the management of that paper declined to 
comment on the charge. 

It was natural that as the present President of 
the United States of America strongly favored the 
constitution or covenant of the so-called League of 
Nations, the army of supporters of his administration 
would be inclined to support the league, and, generally, 
would be found actively doing so, and this would be 
particularly true of those who had for the President a 
high personal regard, and also of those who would 
accept the views of a president simply because he was 
president. 

With all these agencies and influences acting for 
the League of Nations, it was to be expected that at 
first very many would be led to favor a league, or 
the “League of Nations,” but, notwithstanding this 
tremendous propaganda, it is evident that millions of 
Americans do not want the “League of Nations,” and 
that the very intensity of the propaganda has raised 
questions against the league, and doubts as to its 
wisdom. 

The side not in favor of the league seemed to be 
without any such propaganda, and without facilities to 
carry one on, and simply rested their confidence in 
the rightness of their cause, and bided their time, 
though a few tried to get the ear and eye of the 
citizens of America, and where they had a fair hearing 
they made a mighty impression. 

The propaganda for the league, which had been 
well financed and shrewdly engineered, swept the 
country before the people had the facts and time to 


16 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


think. Consequently they were in many instances 
thrown into confusion, but gradually they learned that 
propagandists for the league had not fairly stated the 
case, and that sometimes they had not accurately 
stated the facts. Then a reaction began which was 
strengthened by a few speakers, and by the North 
American Review, the New York Sun, Harvey's 
Weekly, the Chicago Tribune, and other publications. 

Before settling such a question there should be 
by everyone a calm and careful study of the question, 
free from prejudice, free from every coercive influ¬ 
ence, and free from every personal motive other than 
the desire to ascertain the truth on this, the most im¬ 
portant matter presented to the American senate and 
the American people since the Civil War. 

Let us seek the facts! 


II 


COMMENTS 

on the 

FIRST LEAGUE CONSTITUTION 

In the work of the Peace Conference President 
Wilson became an exceedingly conspicuous figure, 
though up to the present time it has not been made 
perfectly clear how much should be placed to his 
credit, or how much should be charged as his respon¬ 
sibility, though there are some things that are quite 
plain, and other things that may be fairly inferred. 

As a matter of fact the people in America, and, 
it is said, even in Europe, were more than uncertain 
as to what the Peace Conference itself was saying and 
doing. President Wilson had spoken in favor of “open 
covenants openly arrived at,” and there was a general 
expectation that the proceedings would be public, but 
it proved that the real work of the conference was 
done in private, and that the public and plenary meet¬ 
ings were largely mere forms for the purpose of giv¬ 
ing formal or tacit approval to what had been actually 
done in secret. 

Then, in the United States, it was difficult to 
ascertain what was being done by those at the con¬ 
ference, and few clear and complete statements came 
to the people of this country, and it was understood 
that nothing official came to the Congress. In this 
connection it is to be noted that the governmental 
administration of the United States had taken control 
of the telegraphic cables and the wireless across the 
ocean, and there was a strict censorship over com¬ 
munications. So the expected open covenants were 
being secretly arrived at and the people of the United 
States were not receiving satisfactory information. 


18 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


In the midst of this fragmentary and uncertain 
knowledge of matters connected with the Peace Con¬ 
ference, there was one distinct note loudly sounded, 
namely, that there was being proposed an interna¬ 
tional arrangement that embraced the United States 
of America. So it gradually spread that there was 
being projected a conception of a new relationship 
between the United States and other countries, so that 
it would be combined with other Nations, and that the 
combination would have certain duties and powers as 
a combination over the individual Nations thus asso¬ 
ciated, and, further, that the individual Nation in this 
association would take suggestions, recommendations, 
and decisions, from the combined body, and that it 
would defer to or obey them. 

The professed reason for such a departure from 
America’s foreign policy, as it had been from the early 
period of the country’s history, was that this arrange¬ 
ment would prevent war and preserve peace. This 
revelation as it came across the Atlantic was a new 
idea to Americans generally, and, while there was 
considerable confusion of sentiment, intelligent Ameri¬ 
cans could not help feeling that the scheme was 
destructive of the longtime foreign policy of the 
United States. 

Then came the statement that the President of 
the United States, acting as a peace commissioner, 
was favoring what was admitted to be a departure 
from the long established American practice, and had 
opened the discussion on the subject at the Peace Con¬ 
ference, declaring that this was the earnest wish of 
the American people and that they would be griev- 
iously disappointed unless their wish in this matter 
was met. 

To many Americans this declaration was confus¬ 
ing, as they were not aware that the American people 
had so expressed themselves and they did not know 


FIRST LEAGUE CONSTITUTION 


19 


what was the basis for the statement. However, they 
waited patiently, or impatiently, as the case may have 
been, for further information, and especially for the 
publication of the constitution of what was termed 
the “League of Nations,” that they might learn the 
nature of the proposed international league. 

The interest became intense and surmises became 
conflicting while sentiments for and against this in¬ 
ternational innovation were forming, though the 
people were not in full possession of the facts. 

In the month of February, 1919, the covenant, or 
constitution, of the so-called League of Nations was 
published in the United States of America. It was 
entitled the “League of Nations Covenant,” and, in 
the preamble thereof, it was stated that “the powers 
signatory to this covenant adopt this constitution of 
the League of Nations.” 

The coming of the covenant had been awaited in 
the United States with not a little anxiety and quite 
a considerable degree of growing impatience. Men 
in high position complained that the facts in regard 
to the making of the league had been kept from 
them though the United States must be a deeply in¬ 
terested party. Senators of the United 'States, par¬ 
ticularly, resented this secrecy because they belonged 
to the treaty-making department of the government 
and thought they should have some intimation as to 
what was going on at the Peace Conference. 

But now the covenant or constitution of what was 
being called the League of Nations had been printed 
and was being circulated in this country, and those 
who wished could know for themselves. 

The friends of this league and of those who pro¬ 
moted it hailed this information with great glee and 
pronounced the document to be most perfect. 

President Wilson, who left the Peace Conference 
and crossed the Atlantic to be in America during the 


20 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


closing days of the United States Congress, uttered 
similar views. Thus he said: “Each article was passed 
only after the most careful examination by each mem¬ 
ber of the committee. There is good and sufficient 
reason for the phraseology and substance of each 
article." 

Many repeated these laudations without studying 
or even reading the covenant and simply because the 
President or other influential personages spoke well 
of it, which was more of a compliment to these 
high personages than to themselves and their mental 
methods. 

Newspapers printed these favorable opinions and 
quite a sentiment in some political circles and among 
many well intending persons was developed in favor 
of the league covenant. For the time being, perhaps, 
that was to be expected. 

Criticism, however, soon appeared and showed 
that the proposed draft was not satisfactory to very 
many of the representative people of the United States. 

Then, for the first time, many began to realize 
the real nature of such a league and to perceive what 
it meant for the United States to be involved in the 
complications, the uncertainties, and in the unpleasant 
certainties of such a combination of differing govern¬ 
ments, in different parts of the world, and existing 
under different circumstances. 

Soon many began to perceive that this was a 
more serious proposal than previously they had been 
led to suppose. In the first place, they saw that it 
proposed a radical departure for the United States 
of America from the policy that had given prosperity 
and greatness to this country ; that it would plunge 
the United States into the turmoil of distant parts of 
the earth; that it would mingle the United States with 
other Nations, many of whom were inferior or of a 
different way of thinking and with different moral 


FIRST LEAGUE CONSTITUTION 


21 


standards; and that it would put the United States 
under the influence and control of other Nations. 

An analysis of the first draft of the constitution 
of the League of Nations shows that, as it stood, it 
was a crude document, indefinite in its terms, uncer¬ 
tain as to its exact meaning, and without adequate 
provisions for things which it proposed, and for which 
it calls with authority upon the United States and 
other Nations. 

The constitution does not even specify clearly 
whether at all times this proposed league is to sug¬ 
gest, recommend, or command, or whether a sugges¬ 
tion or recommendation is a positive but more gently 
phrased command. If what it says in the form of a 
recommendation, is merely a suggestion, and nothing 
more, and the Nations in the league may and will do 
as they please, then the league is utter weakness, and 
is of no value, certainly not worth the many millions 
it will cost to run it on a peace basis. On the other 
hand, if its recommendation is equivalent to a com¬ 
mand, then it will be the most extensive despotism the 
world has ever known, and that with the United States 
of America under it. Such were some of the early 
glimpses Americans were permitted to take of the 
proposed international league. 

They noticed that the constitution of the league was 
very indefinite as to the selection of the individuals 
who were to act in and for the league, and that it did 
not even specify how the little, but ever acting, ex¬ 
ecutive council—this little oligarchy—the main spring 
of the mechanism of this new state, or over-govern¬ 
ment, is to be chosen to over-lord the world. 

One asks: Who elects or appoints the representa¬ 
tives of the Nations, and how are they elected, and how 
long do they continue? And so as to kindred matters 
which are not perfectly clear. 


22 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


Presumably they were to be appointed by the king, 
or emperor, or, rising to a climax, the president, and 
not elected by the people in any true sense, all of which 
may seem perfectly proper in a despotism but hardly 
so in a real democracy. 

Then, if these world-bosses should make mistakes, 
cause unjust damage, or commit crimes in their over¬ 
lordship, there was no indicated method for taking 
them to task and punishing them for their wrong¬ 
doing, and no way to pay the damages to the injured 
parties, one of which might be the United States. 

One had to ask: What provision is there for hold¬ 
ing the executive council, or the league itself re¬ 
sponsible for its acts? What provision is there for 
holding the representatives in the council, or the 
league, to a personal responsibility as members of 
these bodies? If they do wrong what provision is 
there for punishing them for their misdoing? If the 
council or league injures a party or Nation what pro¬ 
vision is there for rectifying the wrong and compen¬ 
sating the injured party? What court will try the 
league and what force will execute the decree of the 
court, and who will execute the criminal? 

There are no provisions to cover such possible and 
probable cases, and, therefore, the constitution of the 
league though very comprehensive is not an explicit in¬ 
strument. 

The assumption seems to be that all the Nations, 
forty-five more or less, will always behave properly, 
never be selfish, but always be benevolent and good. 
This, however, is a sheer assumption and contrary to 
history and human nature. 

High authority said the United States, or any 
Nation, could withdraw when it pleased, but the con¬ 
stitution of the league said nothing about it. If, 
however, one Nation can withdraw, then any other can 
withdraw, and all the Nations can withdraw, and, if 


FIRST LEAGUE CONSTITUTION 


23 


that be the case, then there is nothing in the league 
on which the world can certainly depend, for any day 
the member Nations may leak out, and then there 
would be no league. If the Nations can withdraw at 
pleasure, then the league is no better than a rope of 
sand. It is without coherence or adherence and some 
day the Nation that adheres may be left alone, the last 
grain of sand in the rope that no longer exists. Such 
a cable could not hold in a storm. 

Individuals in a Nation cannot get out of their 
national organizations and responsibilities as easily as 
that, which shows that the national bond is stronger 
than the international. If Nations can get out of the 
league at will, as was conceded under that early cove¬ 
nant, then they may drop apart at the most critical 
moment and the world would realize what a worthless 
league it had been. 

Going to war is a matter quite prominently and 
repeatedly suggested and stated in the covenant, but 
many points connected with the league-wars are not 
covered, and much is left in doubt, and, if these vital 
things were ever thought out by anybody they never 
were worked out or into this document. 

Almost everything of vital importance is largely 
left in the air, or, to change the figure, is based on 
the presumption that everything will come out all right 
somehow, or anyhow, and the ground for this seems 
to be the assumed perfection of the league, and the 
supposed infallibility and impeccability of the Nations 
forming the constituent members of the league bodies, 
which, in the light of history and human nature, is 
arrant nonsense. Yet, notwithstanding these and 
many other defects, the highest presumable authority 
said it was practically perfect as to its language 
and as to its matter; that it could not be amended and 
should not be changed, but must be taken just as it 
was. It was, therefore, presented as a perfect piece 


24 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


of work. Facts, however, have demonstrated that it 
was full of imperfections of many kinds, and, after 
a time, this was generally admitted on this, and also, 
on the other side of the ocean. 

The document itself is an imperfect production 
as a document, as to its plan, and as to the provisions 
for bringing about promised results. The President 
himself approved it as to its substance, and even to 
its phraseology, and said it would not, and could not, 
be changed, and, excepting in some unstated phrasings, 
and must be adopted just as it stood. But some of the 
best scholars and publicists declared it a hasty docu¬ 
ment that could not stand either as to substance or as 
to language, and that, as it stood, it showed the matter 
had not been thought out or properly constructed. 

Even President Lowell, of Harvard University, 
though speaking in favor of a league idea, was em¬ 
phatic in his judgment publicly expressed in the 
so-called Boston debate, and he repudiated this draft of 
a constitution as “obscure,” with its points “often inac¬ 
curately expressed,” and altogether “badly drafted,” 
and said: “The covenant is very defective in its draft¬ 
ing. In places it is so obscure that the meaning is 
often inaccurately expressed and sometimes doubtful,” 
all of which was rather hard on a document which had 
been pronounced so perfect in substance and in phrase¬ 
ology. The document is not only crude but it is exceed¬ 
ingly defective in certain vital particulars. It does 
not say clearly what such a document should say, and, 
as President Lowell has shown, it is “doubtful” even 
in that which it means to express, and, indeed so much 
so that the reader might wonder whether the real pur¬ 
pose was to be doubtful, so that the interpretation 
would be left to the league body itself, and so that when 
the Nations adopted the league they would be agreeing 
to something not explicitly stated and which they did 
not understand, and thus leave the way open for the 


FIRST LEAGUE CONSTITUTION 


25 


league to read meanings into it by future interpreta¬ 
tions. 

Indeed one has said: “We must assume that there 
is . . . ‘good and sufficient reason’ for drawing the 
covenant badly and so obscurely that it is easily mis¬ 
understood.” 

However that may be, the fact that a document is 
so defective and obscure demanded its amendment or 
rejection, while at the same time the defects cast a 
suspicion on the safety and wisdom of the scheme 
itself. 

Possibly one may admit the imperfections of the 
document, but say it should be adopted as a beginning 
and that it can be changed later. 

Anyone of experience, however, knows that 
changes are difficult to make after a contract has been 
signed, sealed, and delivered, and that afterward 
changes are often to the disadvantage of the parties 
who seek them. 

If such a document is adopted, it is very uncer¬ 
tain what changes will be made later, but one thing is 
quite certain, and that is that, if the league body once 
gets things into its own hands, it is not likely that it 
will give up anything which it has interpreted as 
belonging to its power. Such bodies usually grasp at 
all within their reach and seek to strengthen their 
grip, and not to relax or weaken their hold. 

Experience teaches that no instrument of that 
character should be accepted until it is entirely satis¬ 
factory, as no one should sign a contract until it is in 
proper form and every point is made perfectly clear 
and is properly protected, and especially when it passes 
from our control. 

We may be told that when the Constitution of the 
United States was sent around for ratification it was 
greatly criticized, yet it was adopted and has proved 
itself to be an excellent instrument. 


26 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


Just so, but the cases are not parallel. In the case 
of the Constitution of the United States, the objections 
were not quite of the same character, but the people 
knew that even if it were adopted, it was still in their 
own hands, and that after testing it, they could change 
it as they pleased. 

In the case of the constitution of the League of 
Nations, however, the situation is very different, for, 
if the United States should adopt it then it would be 
out of our hands, and the power to change would be in 
the hands of the league made up of foreign powers, 
and they could always prevent our having our wish 
and way in the matter of amendment of this league 
constitution, and that by a single dissenting vote. 

Further, in the case of the Constitution, its adop¬ 
tion was largely secured by the previous proposition 
to promptly submit certain amendments to it. Thus 
in the New York convention the Anti-Federalists in¬ 
sisted that, if the Constitution was ratified, it must be 
on condition of amendment. Patrick Henry, in Vir¬ 
ginia, did not like the Constitution as presented, but 
proposed a bill of rights and a considerable number of 
amendments, so other individuals and States proposed 
amendments and a bill of rights also. 

In consequence of this understanding, the first 
Congress, on the 25th of September, 1789, submitted 
the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the 
United States, and the first of these was on the freedom 
of religion, of speech, and of peaceable assembly, mat¬ 
ters which seem to have been overlooked in the making 
of the Constitution, possibly because they were so 
fundamental in the American mind that they were 
taken for granted, though the Constitution, in Article 
VI, did say: “No religious test shall ever be required 
as a qualification to any office of public trust under the 
United States." 


FIRST LEAGUE CONSTITUTION 


27 


The ten amendments were adopted by six states 
in four months, and then by others. These ten amend¬ 
ments thus completed the Constitution for the time 
being, and when we talk of the Constitution of that day 
we should count in the first ten amendments which 
gave the people their bill of rights. 

So the adoption of the, to some, unsatisfactory 
Constitution of the United States was very different 
from what would be the case if the United States was 
to agree to the objectionable Constitution of a so-called 
League of Nations. The people of the United States 
had the power to make and amend their Constitution 
to suit themselves, but if the United States accepted 
the Constitution of the League of Nations, the amend¬ 
ment of this Constitution would be in the hands of 
foreign powers. The cases are not parallel and the 
discussion on the adoption of the Constitution of the 
United States does not apply. 

The Nation that goes into a league will not have 
control of the amending power after it becomes a 
member, and, therefore, the only safe course is to 
insist that the constitution or covenant shall be per¬ 
fected and made perfectly satisfactory before it enters 
and takes the obligations. 


Ill 


DEMANDS 

for 

AMENDMENT OR REJECTION 

After a short stay in the United States, Mr. Wil¬ 
son again sailed away from his own country to France 
and the Peace Conference, but, hardly had the Presi¬ 
dent crossed the three-mile limit from the American 
coast, before leading friends of the league idea came 
out in public speech and print, declaring that the pro¬ 
posed covenant would not do, and that it must be 
changed and that extensively. 

Thus ex-President Taft, who had spoken in New 
York, on the same platform with Mr. Wilson, on the 
same occasion, just before the President’s sailing, 
strongly demanded amendments in the draft. 

Mr. Taft said: “Undoubtedly the covenant needs 
revision. It is not symmetrically arranged, its mean¬ 
ing has to be dug out, and the language is ponderous 
and in diplomatic patois.” He also referred to am¬ 
biguous phrases, and said: “One of these, for in¬ 
stance, is in respect to the Executive Council,” and 
again he said, the covenant “should be made more 
definite by a larger reservation of the Monroe Doc¬ 
trine, and also as to when its obligations may be 
terminated.” 

Mr. Taft had proposed a League of Nations to 
enforce peace, but that is a very different thing from 
the proposed League of Nations. The latter league 
favored by some and phrased at the Peace Conference, 
covers many things beside the enforcement of peace. 
It is not strictly a league to enforce peace, but a league 
to make war, while it professes to keep some Nations 
from going to war, and also a league to supervise and 
direct the general affairs of the world, or, at least, the 


AMENDMENT OR REJECTION 


29 


greater part of the world. It is a great misapprehen¬ 
sion to think that the one aim of the so-called League 
of Nations is simply to enforce peace. It is planned 
to make war, and some, indeed, might say to provoke 
war. Certainly it has machinery to carry on war. 
But its great purpose is to govern the Nations of the 
world in practically everything. It is a government— 
a new government—an over-government of the 
Nations. 

President Lowell of Harvard University, also 
interested in a league to enforce peace, and quoting 
him more fully, has said: “The covenant is very de¬ 
fective in its drafting. In places it it so obscure that 
the meaning is often inaccurately expressed and some¬ 
times doubtful. It is easily misunderstood, and has in 
fact been widely misunderstood. To give a single 
example of what must be defective drafting, Article 
XVI provides that if any country resorts to war, in 
disregard of its covenant, the members of the league 
shall immediately prevent all financial, commercial 
and personal intercourse between the nationals (that is 
the citizens) of the covenant-breaking state, and the 
nationals of any other state, whether a member of the 
league or not. It is not difficult for members of the 
league to prevent their own citizens from trading with 
the citizens of the offending country, but how about 
the citizens of other countries not members of the 
league? No doubt the framers of this clause had in 
mind a blockade; but what if the offender’s land fron¬ 
tiers border upon countries not members of the league? 
Suppose, for example, that the new state of Poland 
should, contrary to her covenant, attack Czecho-Slo- 
vakia. How are the leagued Nations to prevent the 
Poles from trading with the Russians and Germans on 
the east and west? Apparently something here is 
wrong.” 

This was one illustration of a defect. 


30 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


Even Mr. William Jennings Bryan, Mr. Wilson’s 
former Secretary of State, demanded very extensive 
amendment of the league constitution. 

Mr. Elihu Root, ex-Senator and ex-Secretary of 
State, pointed out many defects in the Constitution of 
the League of Nations and offered a number of con¬ 
structive suggestions, while he exposed the weakness 
and dangers of the league constitution. 

Like the statesman he is, he said the paper “has 
very serious faults which may lead to the failure of the 
whole scheme unless they are remedied, and some 
faults, which unnecessarily and without any benefit to 
the project tend to embarrass and hinder the United 
States in giving its full support to the scheme.” 

Then, after various important observations, he 
proceeds to say: “The scheme practically abandons 
all effort to promote or maintain anything like a sys¬ 
tem of international law, or a system of arbitration, or 
of judicial settlement, through which a Nation can 
assert its legal rights in lieu of war. It is true that 
Article 13 mentions arbitration, and makes the parties 
agree that whenever a dispute arises ‘which they 
recognize to be suitable for submission to arbitration,’ 
they submit it to a court ‘agreed upon by the parties.’ 
That, however, is merely an agreement to arbitrate 
when the parties choose to arbitrate, and it is therefore 
no agreement at all. It puts the whole subject of 
arbitration back where it was twenty-five years ago. 
Instead of perfecting and putting teeth into the system 
of arbitration provided for by the Hague Conventions, 
it throws those conventions upon the scrap heap. By 
covering the ground of arbitration and prescribing a 
new test of obligation, it apparently, by virtue of the 
provisions of Article 25, abrogates all the 200 treaties 
of arbitration by which the Nations of the world have 
bound themselves with each other to submit to arbi- 


AMENDMENT OR REJECTION 


31 


tration all questions arising under international law, 
or upon the interpretation of treaties 

“It is to be observed that neither the Executive 
Council nor the body of delegates to whom disputes are 
to be submitted under Article 15 of the agreement is in 
any sense whatever a judicial body or an arbitral body. 
Its function is not to decide upon anybody's right. It 
is to investigate, to consider, and to make recommenda¬ 
tions. It is bound to recommend what it deems to be 
expedient at the time. It is the States which act, and 
not the individuals. The honorable obligation of each 
member is a political obligation as the representative 
of a State. This is a method very admirable for deal¬ 
ing with political questions; but it is wholly unsuited 
to the determination of questions of right under the 
law of nations. It is true also that Article 14 mentions 
a Court of International Justice, and provides that the 
Executive Council should formulate plans for such a 
court, and that this court shall when established be 
competent to determine matters which the parties 
recognize as suitable for submission to it. There is no 
agreement or direction that such a court shall be estab¬ 
lished or that any questions shall be submitted to it. 

“International Law is not mentioned at all, except 
in the preamble, no method is provided, and no purpose 
is expressed to insist upon obedience to law to develop 
the law, to press forward agreement upon its rules and 
recognition of its obligations. All questions of right 
are relegated to the investigation and recommendation 
of a political body to be determined as matters of 
expediency. 

“I confess I cannot see the judgment of three gen¬ 
erations of the wisest and best of American statesmen 
concurred in by the wisest and the best of all our Allies 
thus held for naught. I believe with them that—neces¬ 
sary as may be the settlement of political questions 
upon grounds of expediency—it is also necessary to 


32 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


insist upon rules of international conduct founded upon 
principles, and that the true method by which public 
right shall be established to control the affairs of 
nations is by the development of law, and the enforce¬ 
ment of law, according to the judgments of impartial 
tribunals. I should have little confidence in the growth 
or permanence of an international organization which 
applied no test to the conduct of nations except the 
expediency of the moment. 

“The first change which I should make in this 
agreement accordingly would be to give effectiveness 
to the judicial settlement of international disputes 
upon questions of right—upon justiciable or judicial 
questions—by making the arbitration of such ques¬ 
tions obligatory under the system established by the 
Hague Conference, or before the proposed Court of 
Arbitral Justice, or, if the parties prefer in any par¬ 
ticular case, before some specially constituted tribunal; 
putting the whole world upon the same footing in that 
respect that has been created between the United 
States and practically every nation now represented in 
Paris, by means of the special treaties which we have 
made with them. The term ‘justiciable questions’ 
should be carefully defined, so as to exclude all ques¬ 
tions of policy, and to describe the same kind of ques¬ 
tions the Supreme Court of the United States has been 
deciding for more than a century.” 

Thus this great statesman uncovered a radical 
defect in the covenant, and, in the same way he pointed 
out various other evils therein contained. The league 
was not to be a judicial body but a political body and 
questions would not be decided judicialy but politically, 
and they might be so decided by the council or by the 
league meeting both of which were political bodies. 

Most important of all, members of the United 
States Senate at last found a way of expressing them¬ 
selves on the league projected in the Peace Conference. 


AMENDMENT OR REJECTION 


33 


They believed the President should have taken 
them into his confidence, and objected to having any 
treaty forced upon them, and resented what to them 
seemed an intimation that they must accept and adopt 
what was brought to them, just as it was, and this dis¬ 
satisfaction was found within the President’s party as 
well as within the opposition, so that the criticism was 
non-partisan. 

Senator Sherman in the Senate offered a resolu¬ 
tion proposing that the Senate vote its belief that 
President Wilson should not deliver any public ad¬ 
dresses on the subject of the League of Nations until 
he shall have communicated to the Senate Foreign Re¬ 
lations Committee all the information possessed by him 
with respect to the Constitution of the League of 
Nations. This was on the Twenty-first of February, 
1919. Under the rules the resolution went over, but it 
became a matter of record. 

Senators from both the great parties expressed 
themselves in formal speeches against the league prop¬ 
osition. Thus, on the same day that Senator Sherman 
presented his resolution (February 21, 1914) Senator 
William E. Borah, of Idaho, followed that resolution 
with a speech in the Senate against the proposed league, 
and in his closing appeal said: “How shall we help to 
bring order out of chaos? Shall we do so by becoming 
less or more American? Shall we entangle and em¬ 
barrass the efforts of a powerful and independent 
people, or shall we leave them in every emergency and 
in every crisis to do in that particular hour and in that 
supreme moment what the conscience and wisdom of an 
untrammeled and liberty-loving people shall decide is 
wise and just? Or shall we yoke our deliberations to 
forces we cannot control and leave our people to the 
mercy of powers which may be wholly at variance with- 
our conception of duty? I may be willing to help my 
neighbor, though he be improvident or unfortunate, but 


34 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


I do not necessarily want him for a business partner. 
I may be willing to give liberally of my means, of my 
council and advice, even of my strength or blood, to 
protect his family from attack or injustice, but I do not 
want him placed in a position where he may decide for 
me when and how I shall act or to what extent I shall 
make sacrifice. 

“I do not want this Republic, its intelligence, and 
its patriotism, its free people and its institutions to go 
into partnership with and to give control of the part¬ 
nership to those, many of whom have no conception of 
our civilization and no true insight into our destiny. 
What we want is what Roosevelt taught and urged— 
a free, untrammeled Nation, imbued anew and inspired 
again with the national spirit. Not isolation but free¬ 
dom to do as our own people think wise and just; not 
isolation but simply the unembarrassed and unen¬ 
tangled freedom of a great Nation to determine for 
itself and in its own way where duty lies and where 
wisdom calls. 

“There is not a supreme council possible of crea¬ 
tion or conceivable equal in wisdom, in conscience, and 
humanitarianism to the wisdom and conscience and 
humanitarianism of the hundred million free and inde¬ 
pendent liberty-loving people to whom the living God 
has intrusted the keeping of this Nation. The moment 
this Republic comes to any other conclusion, it has 
forfeited its right to live as an independent and self- 
respecting Republic. 

“In these times, when ancient faiths are disap¬ 
pearing and governments are crumbling, when insti¬ 
tutions are yielding to the tread of the mad hosts of 
disorder, let us take our stand on the side of orderly 
liberty, on the side of constitutional government. Let 
us range ourselves along with Washington and Jeffer¬ 
son and Jackson and Lincoln and Roosevelt. Let us be 



AMENDMENT OR REJECTION 


35 


true to ourselves; and, whatever the obligations of the 
future, we cannot then be false to others.” 

Senator Borah uttered these words of caution and 
exhortation because he saw that this League of Nations 
meant the destruction of the true independence of the 
United States of America, and its subordination to the 
will and vote of other nations. 

Senator Philander C. Knox, of Pennsylvania, a 
great international lawyer and statesman, and also a 
former Secretary of State, made an impressive speech 
against the first constitution of the league, and not only 
exposed its defects and unconstitutionally, but also 
constructively showed what a document of this char¬ 
acter should contain, thus indicating how the instru¬ 
ment might be improved by those who desired to have 
an associated arrangement. 

Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, one 
of the strongest and most learned men in American 
official life, made a great speech in the Senate against 
this League of Nations, and, in his friendly debate in 
Boston with Doctor A. Lawrence Lowell, President of 
Harvard University, pointed out the weaknesses of the 
league. 

First, he criticized the language and construction 
of the draft, and said: “The draft appears to me, and 
I think to any one who has examined it with care, to 
have been very loosely and obscurely drawn. It seems 
to me that Lord Robert Cecil, who I believe is prin¬ 
cipally responsible for it, should have put it in the 
hands of a parliamentary draftsman before it was 
submitted. A constitution or a treaty ought to be in 
legal, statutory, or constitutional language, and not in 
the language selected for this purpose.” 

Then he declared that: “The language of that 
draft is of immense importance, because it is necessary 
that there should be just as few differences of opinion 
as to the meaning of the articles of that draft as human 


36 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


ingenuity can provide against. No man, be he Presi¬ 
dent or Senator, can fix what the interpretation of that 
draft is. The draft itself, the articles themselves, 
should answer as far as possible all questions. There 
is no court to pass upon them. They would have to be 
decided by the nine powers whose representatives com¬ 
pose the executive council.” 

After showing that already differences of inter¬ 
pretation had developed, he demanded that the Monroe 
Doctrine be recognized, and remarked that “Washing¬ 
ton’s doctrine was not transient. I may be wrong, the 
time may have come to discard it, but it is not epehem- 
eral, because it rests on two permanent facts: human 
nature and geography. 

“Human nature, you may say, has changed. When 
you study the history of the past, as far as we have a 
history, there is a curious similarity in it at all stages. 
But one thing is certain—not even the wisest and most 
optimistic reformers can change the geography of the 
globe. They say communication has quickened enor¬ 
mously. The Atlantic ocean is not what it was as a 
barrier, or the Pacific either, I suppose. But do not 
forget that, even under modern conditions, the Silver 
Street, the little channel only twenty miles wide, was 
England’s bulwark and defense in the last war. Do 
not underrate the three thousand miles of Atlantic. 
It was on that that the Monroe Doctrine, the corollary 
of Washington’s policy, rested.” 

Then Senator Lodge pertinently remarked: “They 
say that if we demand the exclusion of the Monroe 
Doctrine from the operation of the league they will 
demand compensation. Very well. Let them exclude 
us from meddling in Europe. That is not a burden we 
are seeking to bear. We are ready to go there at any 
time to save the world from barbarism and tyranny, 
but we are not thirsting to interfere in every obscure 
quarrel that may spring up in the Balkans.” 


AMENDMENT OR REJECTION 


37 


Passing to other matters, the Senator said: 
“There is the question of immigration, which this 
treaty reaches under the non-justiciable questions. I 
am told—I believe I have followed it through all the 
windings—that a final decison could only be reached 
by unanimity, and it is said that the league would not 
be unanimous. I think that highly probable, but I deny 
the jurisdiction. I cannot personally accede to the prop¬ 
osition that other nations, that a body of men in execu¬ 
tive council, where we as a nation have but one vote, 
shall have any power, unanimous or otherwise, to say 
who shall come into the United States. It must not be 
within the jurisdiction of the league at all. It lies at 
the foundation of national character and national well 
being. There should be no possible jurisdiction over 
the power which defends this country from a flood of 
Japanese, Chinese and Hindu labor. 

“The tariff is involved in the article for the boy¬ 
cott. The coastwise trade is involved in Article XXI. I 
think we ought to settle our own import duties. They 
say it is a domestic question. So is immigration, but 
they are domestic questions with international 
relations. 

“Moreover, and I know some people think this is a 
far-fetched objection, but having other nations meddle 
with our tariff runs up against a provision of the Con¬ 
stitution.” 

He spoke against Article XIX which provides for 
mandatories and said it was “a very grave respon- 
sibilty to take charge of some distant people, furnish 
them with civilians to carry on their government, fur¬ 
nish them with an army to protect them, and send our 
young men away on that business.” In America, under 
the Monroe Doctrine, it is a different thing, he said, 
“But,” he added, “this is a demand to go through Asia, 
Africa, and Europe, and take up the tutelage of other 
people.” 


38 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


“Then comes Article X. That is the most impor¬ 
tant article in the whole treaty. That is the one that I 
want the American people to consider, take it to their 
homes and their firesides, discuss it, think of it. If 
they commend it the treaty will be ratified and pro¬ 
claimed with that in it. But think of it first; think 
well. 

“That pledges us to guarantee the political inde¬ 
pendence and territorial integrity against external ag¬ 
gression of every nation a member of the league. That 
is, every nation of the earth. We ask no guarantees; 
we have no endangered frontiers; but we are asked to 
guarantee the territorial integrity of every Nation 
practically in the world—it will be when the league is 
complete. As it is today, we guarantee the territorial 
integrity and political independence of every part of 
the far-flung British empire. 

“Now mark! A guarantee is never invoked except 
when force is needed. If we guaranteed one country in 
South America alone, we were the only guarantor, and 
we guaranteed but one country, we should be bound 
to go to the relief of that country, with army and navy. 
We, under that clause of that treaty—it is one of the 
few that are perfectly clear—under that clause of the 
treaty we have got to take our army and our navy and 
go to war with any country which attempts aggression 
upon the territorial integrity of another member of the 
league. 

“Now, guarantees must be fulfilled. They are 
sacred promises—it has been said, only morally bind¬ 
ing. Why, that is all there is to a treaty between great 
nations. If they are not morally binding they are 
nothing but ‘scraps of paper.’ If the United States 
agrees to Article X we must carry it out in letter and 
in spirit; and if it is agreed to, I should insist that we 
did, because the honor and good faith of our country 
would be at stake. 


AMENDMENT OR REJECTION 


39 


“Now, that is a tremendous promise to make. I 
ask the fathers and the mothers, the sisters and the 
wives and the sweethearts whether they are ready yet 
to guarantee the political independence and territorial 
integrity of every nation on earth against external 
aggression, and to send the hope of their families, the 
hope of the nation, the best of our youth, forth into 
the world on that errand. 

“If that league with that article had existed in the 
eighteenth century, France could not have assisted this 
country to win the revolution. If that league had 
existed in 1898, we could not have interfered and 
rescued Cuba from the clutches of Spain; we should 
have brought a war on with all the other nations of 
the world” 

Senator Miles Poindexter, of Washington, opposed 
the league, and in an able and extended speech in the 
Senate, declared that the league covenant, instead of 
being an instrument of peace was “the fertile seed of 
war—the dragon's teeth from which, when sown, 
armed soldiers will spring,” and said “we are facing 
an abyss, and the American people should not be led 
into it blindfolded,” and, further, he declared that par¬ 
ticipation by the United States in such a covenant 
would mean a surrender of American sovereignty, 
rights, and privileges, the abandonment of the Monroe 
Doctrine, and a violation of the Federal Constitution. 

Senator James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New York, 
attacked the proposed league and, among other things 
said: 

“There is grave doubt of the power of the Presi¬ 
dent and the Senate to agree, as is proposed in Article 
X, to join other powers at any time in preserving the 
territorial integrity of states which are members of 
the league. Article X proceeds to vest the executive 
council with the right to advise as to the means by 
which such obligations should be fulfilled. Should such 


40 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


advice involve the United States in making war, the 
United States could not act under its own Constitution, 
which provides that Congress must declare war. If 
this is so, the promise at this time to do something in 
the future which we would have no right to do is of no 
value unless, indeed, we change our Constitution. 

“Much has been said about surrendering sover¬ 
eignty on the part of members of the proposed league. 
It may be contended that there is no direct and abso¬ 
lute surrender of sovereignty in the covenant, but that 
it is a potential surrender of sovereignty is very cer¬ 
tain. The trouble is we cannot foresee conditions 
under which we would be called upon to surrender 
our sovereignty. A foreign power might insist on a 
course of action affecting the Western Hemisphere 
which would constitute a dire threat to our safety and 
a complete overthrow of our national policy—that is 
the Monroe Doctrine. The decision of the tribunal 
might very well be unfavorable to our contentions and 
place us in an impossible condition. In that event, 
were we to resist what we believe the threat against 
our safety, we would thereby be declared under the 
terms of the covenant an outlaw. All diplomatic, com¬ 
mercial and trade relations with other countries would 
be cut off from us, and to that extent our very right 
to live—the highest attribute of sovereignty—would be 
jeopardized. 

“The danger of the whole situation is that we are 
endeavoring to write rules to govern our conduct for 
generations to come, and while writing them we have 
no comprehension of what future conditions will bring 
about. Some of these things are so important that one 
hesitates to discuss the league at length at this time. 
But the American people will be very wise if they will 
avoid being carried off their feet by the glamour of 
a League of Nations that would cure the world of all 
its ills.” 


AMENDMENT OR REJECTION 


41 


Senator Joseph S. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, 
spoke in most emphatic terms against the League of 
Nations. 

Senator Albert B. Cummins, of Iowa; Senator 
Hiram W. Johnson of California, and others strongly 
antagonized the league, but space will not permit cita¬ 
tions from their earnest and eloquent addresses. 

Some of the President’s own party stood by the 
proposed league as though through loyalty to him per¬ 
sonally, as much as from any favorable conviction. 

For example, Senator Gilbert M. Hitchcock, of 
Nebraska, who defended the league on all occasions 
both in and out of the Senate was one of its most 
earnest supporters. 

On the other hand, some of the Democratic Sen¬ 
ators, recognizing it as an American and patriotic 
question vigorously antagonized the League of Nations. 
Thus Senator James K. Vardaman, of Mississippi, re¬ 
ferring to the league, said: 

“It presents a problem that will test the capacity 
of the American people for self-government and the 
preservation of the American Constitution; it marks 
the most vital period in the life of this Nation up 
to date.” 

Senator James A. Reed, of Missouri, also a Demo¬ 
crat, made a very forceful speech in the Senate, on 
the Twenty-second of February, 1919, against the pro¬ 
posed League of Nations, in which he characterized 
the covenant as “The most remarkably obscure instru¬ 
ment” he had ever read, and then said: “The hour is 
big with the fate of the world. ... A situation so 
tragic demands the attention of every loyal citizen of 
the Republic. 

“America entered this war a complete sovereign. 
She acknowledged no master; she was arbiter of her 
own destiny. A victor in the war, shall she neverthe¬ 
less emerge a mere constituent state of a league domi- 


42 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


nated by European monarchs and Asiatic despots? 
Shall her nationalism be stricken down and for it sub¬ 
stituted an internationalism? Shall our independent 
democracy come under the control either in whole or in 
part of foreign monarchs or of foreign Bolsheviki? 
We can not escape these questions if we will but learn 
the truth of what is concealed within the four corners 
of the proposed international league. . . . 

“First—That the control of the league from the 
first will inevitably be in European and Asiatic na¬ 
tions, having many interests in common and who may 
have common antagonisms against us. 

“Second—The British Empire will, in all prob- 
abilty, constitute the controlling influence of the league. 

“Third—If at any time England shall lose control, 
the Germanic powers will be likely to succeed to her 
position of dominance. 

“Fourth—There is in the background the menace 
of world Bolshevism. Indeed the monster is the most 
earnest advocate of internationalism. Its fangs are 
plainly visible in the constitution of the league. 

“Fifth—Whoever controls the league will control 
the world. . . . 

“It thus appears that if the original organization 
of the league is limited to the five known members, 
namely, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan and 
the United States, in any controversy there will be the 
votes of four aliens against the single vote of the 
United States. The interests of these four aliens are 
especially in the Eastern Hemisphere, and they are, 
as I have undertaken to show, united by treaties and 
common interests. Clearly the United States is from 
the first at a disadvantage. . . . 

“I come now to the question of the jurisdiction of 
the league, and I assert that a close study of the scheme 
of the league demonstrates that its powers are almost 


AMENDMENT OR REJECTION 


43 


unlimited. Every nation entering the league yields to 
its arbitrament and decision all controversies with 
other countries, even though they involve the national 
honor or the national life. There is no exception. I 
am going to repeat that, for I want to burn it into the 
brain and heart of the American people, that every 
nation entering the league yields to its arbitrament 
and decision all controversies with other countries, 
even though they involve the national honor or the 
national life. 

“Nay, more; so that I may be clearly understood. 
I assert that they yield this power of decision to a 
league—not to an arbitration, and not to an arbitration 
court, both of which are mentioned in this document— 
but, as I shall show, a decision in every instance can 
be forced by the league itself.” 

Then, in the Senate, was presented a resolution 
signed by thirty-eight Republican Senators, which 
showed that seven more than one-third of the present 
and incoming Senate would be against the draft of the 
league as the President had brought it from Paris, 
and one-third would be enough to prevent the confirma¬ 
tion of the proposed constitution of the league. 

This paper was presented by the Hon. Henry 
Cabot Lodge, Senator from Massachusetts, and was 
as follows: 

“Whereas under the Constitution it is a function 
of the Senate to advise, consent to, or dissent from, 
the ratification of any treaty of the United States, and 
no such treaty can become operative without the con¬ 
sent of the Senate expressed by an affirmative vote of 
two-thirds of the Senators present; and 

“Whereas owing to the victory of the arms of the 
United States and of the Nations with whom it is as¬ 
sociated, a Peace Conference was convened and is now 
in session at Paris for the purpose of settling the terms 
of peace; and 


44 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


“Whereas a committee of the conference has pro¬ 
posed a constitution for a League of Nations and the 
proposal is now before the Peace Conference for its 
consideration; now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, By the Senate of the United States, in 
the discharge of its Constitutional duty of advice in 
regard to treaties, that it is the sense of the Senate 
that while it is their sincere desire that the Nations of 
the world should unite to promote peace and general 
disarmament, the Constitution of the League of Na¬ 
tions in the form now proposed to the Peace Confer¬ 
ence should not be accepted by the United States ; And 
be it 

“Resolved further, that it is the sense of the 
Senate that in the negotiations on the part of the 
United States should immediately be directed to the 
utmost expedition of the urgent business of negotiat¬ 
ing peace terms with Germany satisfactory to the 
United States and the Nations with whom the United 
States is associated in the war against the German 
Government, and the proposal for a League of Nations 
to insure the permanent peace of the world should be 
then taken up for careful and serious consideration.” 

It was said that Senator Knox drew up the paper, 
that Senator Brandegee secured the signatures, and 
it is of record that Senator Lodge offered it. 

The names of thirty-eight Republican Senators 
were appended. 

The names signed were as follows: William E. 
Borah, of Idaho; Frank B. Brandegee, of Connecticut; 
William M. Calder, of New York; Albert B. Cummins, 
of Iowa; Charles Curtis, of Kansas; William P. Dilling¬ 
ham, of Vermont; Bert M. Fernald, of Maine; Joseph 
I. France, of Maryland; Joseph S. Frelinghuysen, of 
New Jersey; Frederick Hale, of Maine; Warren G. 
Harding, of Ohio; Hiram W. Johnson, of California; 
Albert B. Fall, of New Mexico; Asle J. Gronna, of 


AMENDMENT OR REJECTION 


45 


North Dakota; Philander C. Knox, of Pennsylvania; 
Lenroot, of Wisconsin; Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massa¬ 
chusetts ; George P. McLean, of Connecticut; Moses, of 
New Hampshire; Harry S. New, of Indiana; Carroll 
S. Page, of Vermont; Boies Penrose, of Pennsylvania; 
Miles Poindexter, of Washington; Lawrence Y. Sher¬ 
man, of Illinois; Reed Smooth, of Utah; Spencer, of 
Missouri; Thomas Sterling, of South Dakota; Howard 
Sutherland, of West Virginia; Charles E. Townsend, 
of Michigan; James W. Wadsworth, of New York; 
Francis E. Warren, of Wyoming; James E. Watson, 
of Indiana; Phipps, of Colorado; McCormick, of Illi¬ 
nois ; Edge, of New Jersey; Keyes, of New Hampshire; 
Newberry, of Michigan; Ball, of Delaware. 

Later it was shown that more than a majority of 
the Senators in the new Congress, including Democrats 
as well as Republicans, would not support the scheme 
for the proposed league as then presented, and they 
had so declared. 

The issue was squarely drawn and the opposition 
to the league constitution which had been presented 
was very pronounced, and it was generally agreed that 
that the covenant in that form could not be ratified by 
the Senate of the United States of America. 

Further, this was a declaration from the Senators 
that the Treaty of Peace and the League of Nations 
were two different things and not the same thing, and 
that the first business of the Peace Conference was to 
make a Treaty of Peace, and that the question of a 
League of Nations was a different and subsequent mat¬ 
ter, and should be considered subsequently and not 
hastily. 

After these and other expressions, the country 
waited to see what would be done with the league 
covenant at the Peace Conference beyond the sea, while 
it was convinced that the covenant which had been 
brought to the United States was doomed to hopeless 


46 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


defeat, and that the Senate should not, and would not, 
sink the sovereignty of the United States of America, 
and would not place this great and independent coun¬ 
try under the control, and at the mercy, of a combina¬ 
tion of foreign countries. 


IV 


THE REVISED COVENANT 

As the time passed the people on this side of the 
Atlantic received reports that in Paris the league-cov¬ 
enant was being amended, and it was asserted that the 
wise suggestions offered in America were being incor¬ 
porated. So all classes waited to see what would be 
the outcome. 

The constitution of the League of Nations, which 
had been presented as so perfect in phraseology and 
substance that it should not, and must not, be amended, 
nevertheless was amended, somewhat in substance and 
rather extensively in phraseology, in the revised form, 
presented and adopted by the Peace Conference, in 
Paris, on the Twenty-eighth day of April, Nineteen 
Hundred and Nineteen, and, say in a couple of weeks, 
it was in circulation in the United States. 

A comparison of the revision with the first con¬ 
stitution will be an interesting study both as to its 
modifications in phrasing, and in its essential matter. 
Comparing the revised covenant with the first consti¬ 
tution or covenant of the league will reveal that some 
changes have been made. 

What these modifications are should be pointed 
out, at least briefly, and their value should be accu¬ 
rately ascertained. Many of them are merely verbal 
changes or changes in arrangement which are not ma¬ 
terial. That there has been some rhetorical and gram¬ 
matical improvement in the wording of the covenant 
may be admitted, though this is not of the greatest 
importance in a legal document. 

It is, nevertheless, interesting in view of the fact 
that persons of position, and even credited with the 
preparation of the former draft of the league constitu¬ 
tion, declared that the first published covenant was so 
perfect that it should not, and must not, be amended, 


48 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


though it was conceded that there might be a little 
change in the phraseology, notwithstanding it was so 
complete and accurate in “phraseology and substance.” 

In the general way some of the changes in the 
former perfect “phraseology and substance” may be 
indicated. 

In the first place, the word constitution is taken 
out of the phrase in the preamble of the former docu¬ 
ment—“this constitution of the League of Nations,” 
and the title “covenant” is substituted, so that it reads: 
“this covenant of the League of Nations,” but that 
makes no change in the meaning. 

So the old form had: “the powers signatory to this 
covenant adopt this constitution of the League of Na¬ 
tions,” while the revision has: “the high contract¬ 
ing parties agree to this covenant of the League of 
Nations.” 

Between “the parties signatory to,” and “the high 
contracting parties,” as between “adopt” and “agree 
to,” there is no very vital difference, as the changes 
are largely matters of verbal taste. 

In the body of the covenant the phrase “The high 
contracting parties” is changed to read: “The mem¬ 
bers of the league,” which is simpler and not quite so 
lofty. 

What was called the “Executive Council” is now 
simply called “the council,” and the meeting of the 
main body of the league is now termed the “Assembly”; 
again matters of taste and making no essential change 
in the meaning. 

Some changes have been made in the requisite 
votes under various circumstances, but none of these 
touch the vital characteristics of this international 
pact. 

The number of Articles in the revision are the 
same as the number in the first draft, namely twenty- 


THE REVISED COVENANT 


49 


six, but there has been some shifting of the matter, so 
that number for number they are not always the same. 

The first conclusion from a careful comparison is 
that there are very few changes in the essential matter 
of the document, and that the modifications are mainly 
in arrangement and in verbal expressions or in the 
rhetoric. 

As President Wilson said in the Conference on the 
day of the final adoption of the instrument, “Most of 
the changes that have been made are mere changes of 
phraseology, not changes of substance, and that, be¬ 
sides that, most of the changes are intended to clarify 
the document, or rather, to make explicit what we all 
have assumed was implicit in the document as it was 
originally presented.” 

So, by this high authority, the new document is 
essentially the same as the old form, and that, indeed, 
it is simply the old body with a slightly different dress. 
That being the case, the presumption is that the essen¬ 
tial objections to the old constitution still apply as well 
to the new covenant, as it is called. 

As the New York Sun said after the appearance 
of the revised form: 

“In the main, the revised league is the same old 
league, which the American people have been consider¬ 
ing for two months and a half,” and then added: 

“We do not believe that the verbal attempts in the 
revised version to evade the manifest dangers of the 
proposed enterprise, even at the expense of the work¬ 
ing efficiency of the league for its avowed purposes, 
have succeeded in making the document satisfactory to 
American sentiment.” 

George Wharton Pepper, Esq., of Philadelphia, 
after reading the revision, said: “The important fea¬ 
ture of the whole plan, as I see it, has not been affected 
by any amendment,” and, referring to the proposed 
Council, he said: “The United States would be bound 



50 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 

to abide by the decisions of the Council and once and 
for all commit to it power of decidng all justiciable 
and non justiciable questions, which is equivalent to 
abdicating its sovereignty. It is hopelessly and funda¬ 
mentally unsound, and, if this provision remains, we 
must regard it as inconsistent with our continued in¬ 
dependent existence.” 

As the provision does remain, Mr. Pepper’s conten¬ 
tion and conclusion stand. It would be “abdicating its 
sovereignty” for the United States to become a member 
of such a league, notwithstanding the modifications 
made in the former draft. 

Later, in an address in New York City, this able 
lawyer, who has studied the revised covenant with 
great care, said: 

“I am opposed to the covenant in its present 
form, because I see certain serious and fundamental 
powers vested in the document, which would make 
it dangerous for the United States to sign. . . . 

“In the League in its present form, of the forty- 
five Nations involved, there is a Council of nine Na¬ 
tions dominated by size. It is an international voting 
trust.” 

Senator Knox, in his speech of June 17th, 1919, 
declared that, after having carefully examined the 
amended draft of the league covenant, he found “that 
instead of having my previously expressed doubts re¬ 
moved, those already entertained are much augmented 
and others not heretofore held are raised,” and added 
that “it would foster wars and give the council of 
the league control of American affairs.” 

There were a few changes in substance. In the 
first draft the right of a member-nation to withdraw 
from the league was a matter of great uncertainty, 
though some said a nation could withdraw. The docu¬ 
ment itself, however, made no mention whatever of the 
matter of withdrawal, and it might have been urged, 


THE REVISED COVENANT 


51 


that a nation that once became a member of the league 
could not withdraw, at least in an orderly and amicable 
manner, though it might make a violent rupture and 
take the unspecified consequences. 

In the revision, however, a new paragraph was 
added to Article One, which addition reads: “Any 
member of the league may, after two years’ notice of 
its intention so to do, withdraw from the league, pro¬ 
vided that all its international obligations and all its 
obligations under this covenant shall have been fulfilled 
at the time of its withdrawal.” 

This says something where nothing had been said 
before, but it does not say all that might be said or 
desired. In the first place, exception is taken to the 
length of time—two years, for a nation that wants to 
withdraw wants to withdraw at once, and will attempt 
to do so when it is in the humor. 

The new paragraph makes it clear that a Nation 
can withdraw, though doubtless some would claim that 
that was an implied right, though the previous law 
was silent on that point. But the new law holds the 
member-nation in the league for two years no matter 
what unpleasant things are transpiring, and no matter 
how badly the nation wants to get out, and a great 
many ugly things can happen in twenty-four months. 

But the member-nation may withdraw “provided 
that all its international obligations and all its obliga¬ 
tions under this covenant shall have been fulfilled at 
the time of its withdrawal,” and only then. 

But who is to determine whether these obligations 
have been met. Is the nation that wants to withdraw, 
or is the league to decide? The law does not say, but 
the presumption is that the league has the power to 
decide. 

But suppose the league should say that one or the 
other obligation has not been met, or that both forms 
of obligation have not been fulfilled? What then? 


52 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


Then probably the league will decline to give the na¬ 
tion a dismissal stating that the nation is in good and 
regular standing? What then? Will it compel the 
nation to go on and do the work as a member, or will 
it penalize or punish the nation in some way? How 
will it do that? And suppose the nation refuses to 
submit to chastisement of any sort? What then? Will 
the league make war upon the nation? And suppose 
the nation resists by force of arms? What then be¬ 
comes of the peace making league? And suppose sev¬ 
eral strong nations withdraw at the same time, and 
then make war on the remaining part of the league 
that wants to prevent their withdrawal and its at¬ 
tempts to inflict punishment? What then becomes of 
the league to prevent war? 

Or again, suppose before the end of the two years 
the league has engaged in war with Mohammedans in 
Mesopotamia and has called out the Army and Navy 
of the United States and these military forces are then 
in the midst of hostilties in that distant land, the league 
could say to the United States you have not fulfilled 
all your “international obligations” and all your ob¬ 
ligations under the covenant of the league, and refuse 
to release the United States. What then? Must the 
United States stay in the league and go on meeting 
these so-called obligations which the league can develop 
at any time, and always? Or if the United States 
would attempt to break away could not the league de¬ 
clare that the United States had not kept its obligations 
and that it was at war with the league, and could it not 
attack the United States and destroy or capture the 
American army in Mesopotamia? Under the covenant 
of the League of Nations the league could do so and 
defend itself in view of the obligations assumed by the 
United States. Withdrawal at the end of two years 
may not be as easy as it looks, and Senator Knox, after 
very careful study of the revision, said it would be al- 


THE REVISED COVENANT 53 

most impossible to withdraw from the league after 
entering it. 

Perhaps the most striking change in substance is 
a reference to, and an asserted recognition of, the Mon¬ 
roe Doctrine. 

According to some high rank friends of the former 
constitution of the league, this, however, does not put 
anything new into the constitution, for they said the 
Monroe Doctrine was in the first constitution though 
not specifically stated. If so, then the insertion in re¬ 
gard to the Monroe Doctrine puts nothing new into the 
revised covenant. 

That declaration, however, was incorrect, for the 
doctrine was not there even by implication. 

The first constitution gave all the Nations in the 
league, no matter in what part of the world they were, 
the right to have a say in the Western Hemisphere as 
well as elsewhere, whereas the Monroe Doctrine put 
the right and responsibility on the United States even 
against Nations in other parts of the world and denied 
the right of non-American Nations to interfere. 

The specific insertion of the reference to the Mon¬ 
roe Doctrine, however, completely overturns the claims 
of high personages that the Monroe Doctrine was pre¬ 
viously in the former constitution of the league, and 
also contradicts the square declaration that it must not, 
and would not be put into the constitution as the first 
constitution must not and could not be amended. 

The pressure of the criticism compelled this spe-. 
cific recognition of the American Doctrine of Monroe, 
at least by the use of the phrase. 

But that has evoked complaints from representa¬ 
tives of other Nations that while the Monroe Doctrine 
gives the United States a certain power in some things 
relating to America, the league covenant permits the 
United States to have a voice in the affairs of these 
other Nations in other parts of the world. If, however, 


54 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


the United States has the responsibility in the Western 
Hemisphere, why should this country have the right or 
duty of interference in all the rest of the world? 
The complaining Nations are right. The United 
States should not meddle with the world outside the 
Americas. 

Some Europeans regard the insertion of the title 
“Monroe Doctrine” with many misgivings. Thus says 
one writer:* “The Italians ask how the Monroe Doc¬ 
trine can be interwoven with the charter of the League 
of Nations, seeing that the league may intervene in the 
domestic affairs of other member states, and, if neces¬ 
sary, despatch troops to keep Germany, Italy and Po¬ 
land in order, but if the United States should be guilty 
of tyrannical acts against Brazil or Argentine, the 
league, paralyzed by the Monroe Doctrine, must look 
on inactive, yet ‘nowhere in the Bible/ writes the 
Corriere Della Sera, “is it written that God placed upon 
the North American territories a race of pure angels 
devoid of stomachs and nails.” 

This insertion some regard as a sop to the United 
States, and assert that it was used in a trade to get 
from the American representation a concession in 
favor of some other Nation or thing, on the give and 
take principle, which sometimes is a lack of principle. 
As to that, however, we have no opinion to express. 

The new article (No. 21) of the League of Nations 
covenant which was supposed to protect the Monroe 
Doctrine reads: 

“Nothing in this covenant shall be deemed to affect 
the validity of international engagements, such as trea¬ 
ties or arbitration or regional understandings like the 
Monroe Doctrine, for securing the maintenance of 
peace.” 

Some staunch Americans strenuously object to the 
language used in Article XXI, where it speaks of 


*Dr. E. J. Dillon. 



THE REVISED COVENANT 


55 


“regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine for 
securing the maintenance of peace.” 

It is denied that the Monroe Doctrine is a “re¬ 
gional understanding,” or an “international engage¬ 
ment,” or a “treaty of arbitration,” or a method for 
“securing the maintenance of peace,” so that the mere 
insertion of the title “Monroe Doctrine,” does not give 
it a proper definition or a true legal standing in the 
league-covenant. The Monroe Doctrine is not any of 
these things. It is not a “treaty,” it is not an “inter¬ 
national engagement” or a way of securing peace, for 
it might mean war, but an American declaration for 
self-defense and the defense of the Western Hemi¬ 
sphere from foreign aggression. So, the mention of 
the Monroe Doctrine in the league covenant is not an 
adequate recognition of the Monroe Doctrine and its 
American interpretation. 

Senator Knox, in his speech before the Senate of 
the United States, on the Seventeenth of June, 1919, 
said: 

“The reservation of the Monroe Doctrine in the 
amended covenant “takes from the doctrine its life,” 
and, he continued: “I am bound in all soberness to say 
that the author of this language either had a profound 
ignorance of what the Monroe Doctrine is, or is de¬ 
termined to make out of it something it is not and 
ought not to be. In either event the result of the 
league provision is the same—it completely wipes out 
the doctrine, as it has been accepted and enforced for 
a hundred years. 

“It has been so curtailed by covenant definition 
as to rob it of most of its value. It has now become 
'a regional understanding' . . . for securing the main¬ 
tenance of peace. It is difficult to speak calmly for a 
perversion such as this. It is hard to conceive of any 
man traditioned in Americanism lending his sanction 
to such a monstrosity. 


56 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


“Never before has the Monroe Doctrine been a 
mere measure of pacifism. It has until now been a 
strong means of self-protection and self-preservation. 
It was designed first to preserve our own life, liberty, 
happiness, and institutions, and next to preserve the 
liberties and institutions of our sister republics of the 
Western world that 'government of the people, by the 
people, and for the people should not perish from the 
earth.’ It was aimed to keep monarchy from this 
hemisphere; kings, princes, and emperors were to have 
no place on this side of the world. But under the new 
doctrine, if Mexico should agree peaceably to allow to 
Japan a strip of her Western territory, if Guatemala 
should make an alliance with Great Britain, or Brazil 
with Germany, or Argentina with Italy, or if they 
should grant to them regions or strips of territory, or 
concessions, or zones of influence, how could we say 
that a regional understanding for securing the main¬ 
tenance of peace had been violated? Would not the 
answer be: No hostile activity has occurred, none is 
contemplated, and none shall occur unless your your¬ 
selves, America, undertake or threaten them. And if 
we do threaten them, no matter how great the menace 
to our existence, they might ultimately prove, we should 
merely bring ourselves within the restraining hand of 
the whole league itself.” 

But now comes the affirmation that if questions 
arise in regard to the Monroe Doctrine the League of 
Nations will do the deciding and not the United States 
of America. 

If that be correct then the mention of the title, 
Monroe Doctrine, in the Article does not have the im¬ 
port that some have supposed. 

It is America’s Doctrine and America must in¬ 
terpret or else it is not America’s Monroe Doctrine, 
and, if the interpretation and application are to be at 
the mercy of the delegates from Europe, Asia, and 


THE REVISED COVENANT 


57 


Africa, then the United States of America will be over¬ 
slaughed and the insertion of the words Monroe Doc¬ 
trine will be an impertinent farce, and, even if the 
league gave the American interpretation, it would be 
the interpretation, not because it was American, but 
because it was the league’s decision. 

On this subject, one of the very great American 
papers has some proper and exceedingly forceful ob¬ 
servations. Seeking an explanation of the status of 
the Monroe Doctrine in the present covenant of the 
league, the editor of this Journal says: 

“The British delegation to the Peace Conference 
issued in Paris on Tuesday a document described by 
the Associated Press as 'a series of commentaries’ on 
the revised covenant of the League of Nations, in which 
their “definite views” thereon were expressed. At this 
moment the commentary which has to do with the 
Monroe Doctrine is of paramount interest in the United 
States, and we reprint this passage in full: 

“ ‘Article XXI makes it clear the covenant is not 
intended to abrogate or weaken any other agreements 
so long as they are consistent with its own terms, into 
which members of the league may have entered or may 
hereafter enter for the assurance of peace. 

“ ‘Such agreements would include special treaties 
for compulsory arbitration and military conventions 
that are genuinely defensive. 

“ ‘The Monroe Doctrine and similar understand¬ 
ings are put in the same category. 

“ ‘They have shown themselves in history to be not 
instruments of national ambition but guarantees of 
peace. 

“ ‘The origin of the Monroe Doctrine is well known. 

“ ‘It was proclaimed in 1823 to prevent America 
from becoming a theatre for intrigues of European 
absolutism. 


58 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


“ ‘At first a principle of American foreign policy, it 
has become an international understanding, and it is 
not illegitimate for the people of the United States to 
say that the covenant should recognize that fact. 

“ ‘In its essence it is consistent with the spirit of 
the covenant, and, indeed, the principles of the league 
as expressed in Article X represent the extension to 
the whole world of the principles of this doctrine, while 
should any dispute as to the meaning of the latter ever 
arise between the American and European Powers the 
league is there to settle it.” 

“Disregarding the assumption that the Monroe 
Doctrine has passed from the status of an ‘American 
foreign policy’ to that of an ‘international under¬ 
standing’—whatever that phrase may mean—it is im¬ 
perative to consider the import of the declaration that 
should any dispute as to the meaning of the principles 
of the Monroe Doctrine ever arise between the Ameri¬ 
can and European Powers ‘the league is there to set¬ 
tle it.’ 

“The significance of this assertion is that in the 
opinion of the British delegation, should a League of 
Nations be formed on the basis of the covenant adopted 
by the Peace Conference in plenary council on Monday, 
interpretation of the principles of the Monroe Doctrine 
would become the function of the League of Nations 
and not of the people of the United States acting 
through their Government. 

“In other words, under this conception the Mon¬ 
roe Doctrine, which, as The Sun has pointed out here¬ 
tofore, is not a part of international law but a political 
policy of the United States, proclaimed by the United 
States and depending wholly on the United States for 
enforcement, would be removed from the exclusive jur¬ 
isdiction of the United States and in its application to * 
any given set of circumstances subjected to the deci¬ 
sions of a cosmopolitan tribunal in which the Nation 


THE REVISED COVENANT 


59 


which gave it force and validity would have but one 
vote. 

“Thus the inclusion of the Monroe Doctrine in the 
draft of the covenant of the League of Nations is not, 
as has been asserted, a ‘recognition’ of the Doctrine, 
as it is understood in the United States, but, in the 
view of the British delegation, that inclusion actually 
amounts to a formal, specific surrender of the prin¬ 
ciples underlying the Doctrine to the judgment and 
wisdom of the League of Nations. 

“If this conception is correct, if the British com¬ 
mentary accurately describes the effect produced upon 
the Monroe Doctrine by Article XXI of the League of 
Nations covenant, that article not only does not protect 
us but in fact deprives us of the right to determine for 
ourselves when and by what means the Monroe Doc¬ 
trine shall be applied in any situation which may arise. 

“There could be no more complete surrender of 
national sovereignty by the United States than that 
which is contemplated in this submission of the Monroe 
Doctrine to a council of parliament composed of repre¬ 
sentatives of foreign Powers. If the British delega¬ 
tion correctly interprets the purpose of Article XXI in 
the covenant this article means that a national policy 
enunciated almost a century ago, unanimously upheld 
by the people of the United States for almost three 
generations, resorted to on numerous occasions by Ad¬ 
ministrations of all partisan and complexions for the 
protection of the Nation, has been abandoned” by the 
American representation and that it has been under¬ 
taken, as this editor says, “to bind the United States 
to a principle of international action subordinating the 
judgment and aspirations of the Nation to the chances 
and dangers of decisions rendered by a mixed court in 
which our representatives would be in a hopeless min¬ 
ority.” New York Sun, May 1, 1919. That the state¬ 
ment of the British delegation is the proper interpreta- 


60 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


tion has never been denied officially or authoritively, 
or, as far as the writer knows, in any way. Plainly the 
British delegates so understood it. 

Mr. Elihu Root declared that if the league cove¬ 
nant was to be seriously considered it should be radi¬ 
cally reconstructed, and, among other amendments he 
proposed the following: 

‘‘Immediately before the signature of the Ameri¬ 
can Delegates, insert the following reservation: 

“ ‘Inasmuch as in becoming a member of the league 
the United States of America is moved by no interest 
or wish to intrude upon or interfere with the politi¬ 
cal policy or internal administration of any foreign 
state, and by no existing or anticipated dangers in the 
affairs of the American continents, but accedes to the 
wish of the European states that it shall join its powers 
to their for the preservation of general peace, the rep¬ 
resentatives of the United States of America sign 
this convention with the understanding that nothing 
therein contained shall be construed to imply a re¬ 
linquishment by the United States of America of its 
traditional attitude towards purely American - ques¬ 
tions, or to require the submission of its policy regard¬ 
ing such questions, (including therein the admission 
of immigrants), to the decision or recommendation of 
others Powers.’ ” 

But, like his other suggestions, this was not incor¬ 
porated, and no equivalent was put into the covenant. 

The Boston Transcript, in denying that the Root 
amendments had been incorporated in the revised cove- 
vant, makes this sound observation: 

“Elihu Root speaks for himself and what he says 
never needs to be interpreted, and what he says he 
always means. He said on March 30 last that to sub¬ 
mit the Monroe Doctrine to the interpretation of out¬ 
side Powers would be to surrender it. The British dele¬ 
gation at Paris has been careful to point out that if 


THE REVISED COVENANT 


61 


disputes arise under Article XXI over the Monroe Doc¬ 
trine the league is there to settle it.” And so it will, 
and if Mr. Root was right on March 30 then Article 
XXI spells the death of the Doctrine.” 

If all these things are correct, the insertion of 
the words Monroe Doctrine in the league covenant 
have no practical value and nothing has been gained. 

Clearly it is not like the reservation which the 
American delegates to the Hague Conference proposed, 
and which the Senate of the United States passed, as 
follows: 

“Nothing contained in this convention shall be so 
construed as to require the United States of America 
to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding 
upon, interfering with or entangling itself in the po¬ 
litical questions of policy or internal administration of 
any foreign state; nor shall anything contained in the 
said convention be construed to imply a relinquishment 
by the United States of its traditional attitude toward 
purely American questions.” 

Further it is not like the reservation the Senate 
adopted in reference to the Algeciras Conference of 
1906, which read: 

“Resolved further, That the Senate, as a part of 
this act of ratification, understands the participation of 
the United States in the Algeciras Conference and in 
the formation and adoption of the general act and pro¬ 
tocol which resulted therefrom, was . . . without pur¬ 
pose to depart from the traditional American foreign 
policy which forbids participation by the United States 
in the settlement of political questions which are en¬ 
tirely European in their scope.” 

These acts are reaffirmations of the American non¬ 
interference with the affairs of foreign countries, and 
the American refusal to permit interference of foreign 
Nations in the Western Hemisphere, and the United 


62 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


States Senate can repeat the affirmations whenever the 
occasion demands it. 

While the Peace Conference was in session, Ste¬ 
phen Lausanne, editor of Le Matin , of Paris, said in 
his paper that it would be impossible ever to reconcile 
the Monroe Doctrine with the League of Nations. In 
it he asks the question: “How is this Doctrine of Mon¬ 
roe violated by the League of Nations project?” and 
answers: “It seems to me monumentally paradoxical 
and a trifle infantile to pretend the contrary,” and then 
remarks: 

“When the Executive Council of the League of Na¬ 
tions fixes The reasonable limits of the armament of 
Peru;’ when it shall demand information concerning 
the naval programme of Brazil (Article VII of the 
covenant) ; when it shall tell Argentina what shall be 
the measure of the ‘contribution to the armed forces to 
protect the signatures of the social covenant’ (Article 
XVI) ; when it shall demand the immediate registra¬ 
tion of the treaty between the United States and Can¬ 
ada at the seat of the league, it will control, whether 
it wills or no, the destinies of America. And when the 
American States shall be obliged to take a hand in 
every war or menace of war in Europe (Article XI), 
they will necessarily fall afoul of the fundamental 
principle laid down by Monroe, which was that Ameri¬ 
cans should never take part in a European war. 

“If the league takes in the world then Europe 
must mix in the affairs of America; if only Europe is 
included then America will violate of necessity her own 
doctrine by intermixing in the affairs of Europe.” 

Notwithstanding the changes made in the wording 
of the covenant of the league, it still remains true that 
the active governing body is “The Council,” and that 
it is made up of nine parties, giving the control thereof 
to only five, while the rest of the Nations in the league 
will have four votes, thus leaving the world in the 


THE REVISED COVENANT 


63 


league, and, it may be, out of the league, to the mercy 
of five men, as a substitute for the autocracy of one, 
though, by some sort of dominance, the five may re¬ 
duce themselves practically to an influential one. 

The revised document states what vote will be 
necessary to pass a measure in the Assembly and the 
council. In places where so stated, a majority vote is 
required. In one instance a two-thirds vote is neces¬ 
sary and in other cases it will require a unanimous 
vote. So the first paragraph of Article Five now 
reads: “Except where otherwise expressly provided in 
this covenant, or by the terms of the treaty,* decisions 
at any meeting of the Assembly or of the Council shall 
require agreement of all the members of the league 
represented at the meeting.” That would prevent 
affirmative action if any one Nation objected. That 
would prevent action against the vote of one dissenting 
representative, but it might block action of the Council 
on many most desirable and important matters, and it 
would be doubtful if ever it could do anything of great 
importance. Certainly it could not if one party op¬ 
posed. This does not seem to work for efficiency, for 
such an arrangement makes a well nigh impotent body 
in the line of doing. If so, what is the good of the 
league ? 

In some things the act of the body is, or seems to 
be, merely recommendatory. In such cases the thing is 
left to the nation to do as it pleases. Then, if the 
nations do not please to do it, it is not done, and the 
central body seems useless and its effectiveness is a 
farce, and, though the league presents itself as a power 
to regulate and even compel the world, yet its expres¬ 
sions often manifest so little wisdom or force in merely 
recommendatory decisions that it makes the league and 
the nations in it seem ridiculous in such cases, unless 
the recommendation is to be understood as implying 


^Inserted after the draft was printed. 



64 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


obligation, and, if that is the case, then there is no 
candor in the expression. 

On the other hand the league is so contradictory 
as to the use of power, that it guarantees every mem¬ 
ber nation its territorial integrity and independence, 
even to having the nations in the league, and under 
the league, make war with their armies and navies 
in any and all parts of the world (Article X.) 

It is, therefore, a war making body, and the na¬ 
tion that becomes a member of the league, is obligated 
to enter the war no matter where it may be, when the 
league so determines. 

Here comes out the assertion of power on the part 
of the league, for example, to summon the United 
States to war, and, if the United States enters the 
league she obligates herself to obey the summons and 
send her army and navy anywhere or everywhere the 
league may say, which would plainly show that the 
United States had lost her independence, and also show 
that such a situation was a violation of the Constitu¬ 
tion of the United States which says only its Congress 
can declare war in which the United States shall en¬ 
gage. As in Article I, §8 of the Constitution of the 
United States we read: “The Congress shall have 
power to declare war.” 

Yet some would like to intimate that going into 
the league would not affect the sovereignty of the 
United States of America, though by so doing it places 
itself under the command of another power; and that 
in such a vital matter as war. 

Article X of the first draft of the constitution of 
the league, appears also as Article X in the revised 
covenant, and is virtually unchanged. The open¬ 
ing words in the former :“The high contracting par¬ 
ties shall undertake,” are changed to read: “The mem¬ 
bers of the league undertake”; “of all states members 
of the league” has been made to read: “of all members 


THE REVISED COVENANT 


65 


of the league,” the word “states” dropping out; and 
the word “executive” before council, likewise disap¬ 
pears. Otherwise no change was made in this Article, 
and the meaning has not been changed in the least. 

In the revision the Article reads: 

Article X.—“The members of the league under¬ 
take to respect and preserve as against external aggres¬ 
sion the territorial integrity and existing political inde¬ 
pendence of all States members of the league. In case 
of any such aggression or in case of any threat or 
danger of such aggression the council shall advise upon 
the means by which the obligation shall be fulfilled.” 

Article X, when the first draft appeared, was 
subjected to severe criticism by senators of both the 
great parties, and it continues to be singled out as 
specially objectionable. 

Its opponents very properly held that this article 
would commit the United States to an interminable 
task that had in it the possibility of many wars that 
would involve its army and navy in distant parts of 
the world, absorb its energy in the affairs of other 
nations, and deplete its exchequer. 

The Honorable Elihu Root took most serious ex¬ 
ception to it. Among other things he said: “If per¬ 
petual, it would be an attempt to preserve for all time 
unchanged the distribution of power and territory 
made in accordance with the views and exigencies of 
the Allies in this present juncture of affairs. It would 
necessarily be futile. It would be what was attempted 
by the Peace of Westphalia at the close of the Thirty 
Years' War, at the Congress of Vienna at the close 
of the Napoleonic Wars, by the Congress of Berlin in 
1878. It would not only be futile; it would be mis- 
chevious. Change and growth are the law of life, and 
no generation can impose its will in regard to the 
growth of nations and the distribution of power upon 
succeeding generations.” 


66 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


Not only would it be in many possible instances 
a great wrong to some, or many, nations which might 
have just reasons for changes in boundary lines but 
the obligation to defend the territorial integrity of 
nations in many and distant parts of the world would 
be more of a tax than even the United States could 
bear, and in addition would be putting itself in relation 
to, and under another political power in an uncon¬ 
stitutional way. 

When the revision appeared, and it was found that 
the intention of the article had not been modified, the 
former criticism was renewed with still more vigor 
and with greater intensity of feeling. 

It was said that this article bonds the members 
of the league to maintain the status quo of the world, 
an obligation which the United States ought not to 
assume. 

Referring to this comprehensive guarantee, Doctor 
David Jayne Hill declared that “Undeniably, by ac¬ 
cepting Article X the United States would become an 
underwriter of imperial insurance in which it would 
not be, and ought not to ask to be, an equal partner.” 

Senator Borah was very outspoken and said: “In 
my opinion Article X is one of the most infamous 
things ever written by the hand of man. From my 
standpoint, I would regard acceptance of Article X 
as treason to the United States.” 

Senator Sherman said: “Articles X and XVI com¬ 
mit our government to continual war rather than 
peace.” 

The foreign correspondent, Mr. John F. Bass, 
writing from Paris, in May, 1919, has some very illu¬ 
minating observations on this very point which should 
be thoroughly weighed. He said: “A person who took 
a large part in framing the peace terms was asked 
today to answer the criticism that the Peace Treaty in¬ 
volved America in the internal and external affairs 


THE REVISED COVENANT 


67 


of European countries to such a degree that we became 
an active agent in the political life of these nations. 

“He replied the criticism had its origin in the 
League of Nations, the very centre of which was the 
clause for territorial guarantees. If we were to guar¬ 
antee the political independence and territorial in¬ 
tegrity of countries, we must have a hand in the ad¬ 
ministration of the new state of affairs. 

“This corroborates my cablegram of May 8, that 
the guarantee of territorial integrity is the centre of 
the peace. The treaty is almost a part of the league 
and judgment on the league ought to require the most 
intimate and careful study of the treaty. For this 
purpose the summary issued to the public is misleading 
and inadequate. 

“Competent and experienced persons say the treaty 
is a novelty in its attempt to regulate everything. 
They add this makes probable a dispute in almost every 
clause. 

“Study of the covenant of the league shows the 
clause by which the members guarantee their terri¬ 
torial integrity can be changed only by unanimous 
consent of the council of the league. It is even prob¬ 
able if two nations agreed to alter their common 
boundary they could be prevented from doing so by 
the dissent of a single member of the council. 

“The British Empire is a party to the league, as 
are India, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. It 
would appear America, with other nations, guarantees 
the political existence and territorial limits of the 
British Empire; of France, including her colonial sys¬ 
tem ; and of Italy and her possessions. 

“Much as we admire the civilizing influence of the 
British Empire in its present form, and great as may 
be our sympathy for France, no thoughtful person can 
view without misgivings this attempt to envelop such 
changing organisms as living nations within the rigid 


68 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


iron bounds of this Article X. If this guarantee had 
existed in the past, America never would have attained 
independence. The assistance France sent us was such 
‘external aggression,' to use the words of the guarantee, 
as would have required the members of the league to 
intervene against us. 

“True, any State may withdraw from the league, 
on two years' notice, if it has fulfilled its international 
obligations. It does not appear what obligations are 
meant. 

“If the treaty with Germany is signed, we, through 
our membership in the Committee for the Collection of 
Damages from Germany, incur an obligation toward 
the collection of the debt. That obligation would con¬ 
tinue until the debt was paid—say more than thirty 
years. It would be a good ground for dispute, if we 
attempted to withdraw from the league in these thirty 
years. 

“There are many similar obligations in the ex¬ 
tremely complicated terms of the treaty, the full signi¬ 
ficance of which is not fully appreciated. 

“Our representatives have had little opportunity 
to grasp the significance of the treaty as a whole. It is 
said to have no parallel in history for the minuteness 
with which it enters into the details of the readjust¬ 
ment of Germany to the new conditions." 

Article XIII, on the matter of arbitration has 
been enlarged, and now undertakes to give instances 
of disputes which may be submitted for arbitration. 

The former covenant left it to the parties them¬ 
selves to decide what was suitable for such submission, 
but the amended article says: “Disputes as to the in¬ 
terpretation of a treaty, as to any question of interna¬ 
tional law, as to any fact which if established would 
constitute a breach of any international obligation, or 
as to the extent and nature of the reparation to be 
made for any such breach, are declared to be among 


THE REVISED COVENANT 


69 


those which are generally suitable for submission to 
arbitration.” 

In the former article the parties did the defining 
and deciding; in the revision the league does the de¬ 
fining and says what should be submitted, thus illus¬ 
trating how rapidly the league can grow in its assump¬ 
tions. The league defines and the member-nations 
“will submit the whole subject matter to arbitration,” 
and will carry out the award, and “In the event of 
any failure to carry out such an award the council 
shall propose what steps should be taken to give effect 
thereto.” 

But the article leaves a loop hole, for it says: 
“The members of the league agree that whenever any 
dispute shall arise between them which they recognize 
to be suitable for submission to arbitration and which 
cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, they will 
submit the whole subject matter to arbitration.” So 
that if the Nation does not “recognize (it) to be suit¬ 
able for submission to arbitration” it need not submit 
it, and the difficulty may go on unsettled. 

Article XXIII refers to labor and labor con¬ 
ditions and is a combination of several articles in 
the former league covenant. It touches upon condi¬ 
tions of labor, and the members of the league “intrust 
the league with the general superintendence over the 
execution of agreements” touching various traffics; 
“will make provision to secure” “freedom of communi¬ 
cation and of transit and equitable treatment for the 
commerce of all the members of the league”; and “en¬ 
deavor to take steps in matters of international con¬ 
cern for the prevention and control of disease.” 

The innocent citizen who supposed that the league 
was merely to prevent war, may be surprised to see 
how this article opens the way for the league to inter¬ 
fere with domestic matters, such as wages and various 
labor questions, and the business of a country, and no 


70 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


one can tell what may be included in the “equitable 
treatment of commerce of all the members of the 
league," but it might mean a universal tariff or uni¬ 
versal free trade. One may well ask: What may the 
league not do? 

Since the revised covenant of the League of Na¬ 
tions was adopted by the Peace Conference, at Paris, 
the same Peace Conference adopted on the twenty- 
ninth of April, 1919, “a permanent machinery asso¬ 
ciated with that of the League of Nations.” 

The following is the text of the labor clauses 
adopted by the plenary session of the Peace Confer¬ 
ence at Paris as given out by the State Department: 

“The high contracting parties, recognizing that the 
well being, physical, moral and intellectual, of indus¬ 
trial wage-earners is of supreme international im¬ 
portance, have framed a permanent machinery asso¬ 
ciated with that of the League of Nations to further 
this great end. They recognize that difference of 
climate, habits and customs of economic opportunity 
and industrial tradition make strict uniformity in the 
conditions of labor difficult of immediate attainment. 
But holding as they do, that labor remedies (probably 
error in transmission) be regarded merely as an ar¬ 
ticle of commerce, they think that there are methods 
and principles for the ratification of labor conditions 
which all industrial communities should endeavor to 
apply so far as their special circumstances will permit. 

“Among these methods and principles the follow¬ 
ing seem to the high contracting parties to be of special 
and urgent importance: 

“First: The guarding principle above enunciated 
that labor should not be regarded merely as a com¬ 
modity or article of commerce. 

“Second. The right of association for all lawful 
purposes by the employed as well as by the employers. 


THE REVISED COVENANT 


71 


“Third. The payment to the employed of a wage 
adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as 
this is understood in their time and country. 

“Fourth. The adoption of an eight-hour day or a 
forty-eight-hour week as the standard to be aimed at 
where it has not already been obtained. 

“Fifth. The adoption of a weekly rest of at least 
twenty-four hours which should include Sunday when¬ 
ever practicable. 

“Sixth. The abolition of child labor and the im¬ 
position of such limitation on the labor of young per¬ 
sons as shall permit the continuance of their education 
and assure their proper physical development. 

“Seventh. The principle that men and women 
should receive equal remuneration for work of equal 
value. 

“Eighth. The standard set by law in each country 
with respect to the conditions of labor should have due 
regard to the equitable economic treatment of all work¬ 
ers lawfully resident therein. 

“Ninth. Each state should make provision for a 
system of inspection in which women should take part 
in order to insure the enforcement of the laws and 
regulations for the protection of the employed. 

“Without claiming that these methods and prin¬ 
ciples are either complete or final, the high contracting 
parties are of opinion that they are well fitted to guide 
the policy of the League of Nations and that if adopted 
by the industrial communities who are members of 
the league and safeguarded in practice by an adequate 
system of such inspection, they will confer lasting 
benefits upon the wage-earner of the world.” 

This further illustrates the purpose of the League 
of Nations to interfere with and control domestic as 
well as international affairs, and to consider nothing 
to be outside its province and responsibility. In other 


72 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 

words, it aims at ruling the world externally and 
internally. 

The league has been supposed to deal only with 
international affairs, but there is no sharp distinction 
between those that are national and those that are 
international, so that it is easy to see that the league 
could, and would, assert the power to determine which, 
and that it is quite certain that it would hold that 
some internal matters so blended in the international 
that the league would have a right to intervene, and 
it would soon be understood as having the power to 
determine. Labor questions such as hours of labor, 
wages, and conditions of the working people are in¬ 
ternal matters, and the league means to touch these 
internal conditions even when it camouflages the fact 
by using the word international. In other words the 
league is planning to look into and to manage in some 
sense national and internal affairs, and no self-respect¬ 
ing nation can tolerate such interference. 

A careful reading of the covenant will show that 
in a number of cases where the phrases do not seem 
to be clearly mandatory, it would be an easy thing 
to give them a positive interpretation, and that at once 
or in the course of time, they will receive the positive 
interpretation by the league, and then be acquiesced 
in by the other practically helpless nations. 

The league covenant claims the power to establish 
mandatory control over sections of the earth (Article 
XXII) and to designate certain nations to have man¬ 
datory control of, and responsibility for, certain coun¬ 
tries, a sweeping assertion of world dominion and uni¬ 
versal domination, on the part of the league, which 
plainly demonstrates that the league proposes to be 
a super-government over the affairs of the earth. 

In thus asserting its power to put a territory, a 
nation, or a colony under some other nation to act 
as a mandatory, the league declares that it is superior 


THE REVISED COVENANT 


73 


to the nations, and, when it does so, it logically declares 
that the nations are subordinate to it, in principle if 
not in fact, but, if it is only in principle, the principle 
will soon grow into the fact. 

The idea of a mandatory should be strenuously 
objected to by the United States, and particularly if it 
is proposed to give the United States a mandate to be 
responsible for the care of a distant country, as, for 
example, a foreign country outside the Western Hemi¬ 
sphere. 

The original Article XIX said nothing about any 
volition on the part of the proposed mandatory state, 
but it is true the new Article XXII states if the nation 
‘‘is willing.” But the assignment may be regarded as 
a command, even when the idea or form of command 
is not used, for involved in the word mandate is the 
idea of command and obligation; and, beyond this is the 
feeling of moral obligation even when the mandate is 
not in the form of a positive command. So to be 
selected to take charge of another country might be 
regarded as a command which the Nation was .bound 
in honor to obey. Probably some will try thus to con¬ 
strue it. 

For some time there has been a rumor floating 
about that the United States would, by the League of 
Nations, be made the mandatory for Constantinople 
and Armenia. 

This would be particularly unhappy for the Gov¬ 
ernment of the United States made war against Ger¬ 
many largely because of her atrocities in the great war, 
but the United States did not and would not declare 
war against Turkey, an ally of Germany, and would 
not although the Turks were torturing and murdering 
hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions of Ar¬ 
menians. It would now be a cheeky proposition to go 
and govern the Armenians whom the Government did 
not and would not help in the time of dire distress. 


74 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


Furthermore, Constantinople and Armenia are 
four thousand miles away and in the countries are 
mixed and turbulent populations, besides the real Ar¬ 
menians, and any army we could send would be small, 
and if the warlike people round about would rise and 
attack our guards, the chances are that they would be 
overwhelmed and then the United States would be 
humiliated. If the proposition is ever made the United 
States should say: “No! Thank you! Let Great 
Britain or France, who are nearer, do it, and under 
the Monroe Doctrine the United States will take care 
of the Western Hemisphere.” 

Doctor David Jayne Hill gives the United States a 
very practical warning when he says: 

“It is no doubt better for us as a people that we 
should never again undertake an imperial partnership. 
We had a woful experience in the Samoan Islands, and 
we were glad to get out of it without involving our¬ 
selves, as we came near doing. 

“But it appears we are not now to stop with 
simple islanders. Among our suggested allotments in 
this programme of joint imperialism, in which our par¬ 
ticipation is expected to justify the perpetuation of the 
whole colonial system, are Constantinople, the worst 
centre of racial and diplomatic intrigue in Europe; 
Armenia, which contains a vast Turkish and Russian 
population, face to face with Russian Bolshevism, 
backed by Turkish machinations to regain control, in 
case it is actually ever taken from the Turk, which has 
not yet been accomplished; and Persia, which we once 
tried to help in the person of an American financial ad¬ 
ministrator, whose work was rendered futile by Rus¬ 
sian and, alas! British intervention.” 

Then it is to be observed in Article XXII, that 
“A permanent commission shall be constituted to re¬ 
ceive and examine the annual reports of the manda- 


THE REVISED COVENANT 


75 


tories and to advise the council on all matters relating 
to the observance of the mandates.” 

What a dignified thing it would be for the great 
United States to open its books for examination by a 
little commission, and for that commission to report 
that the accounts of the United States as mandatory 
for Mesopotamia had been duly audited and found to 
be out of balance and that the United States accounts 
showed a balance due of one dollar and ninety-nine 
cents! And what a recognition it would be of the over¬ 
lordship of the League of Nations, the super-state and 
ruler of the world! 

Some changes, mainly verbal, have been made in 
the league covenant. President Wilson regarded them 
as immaterial and said that “Most of the changes that 
have been made are mere changes of phraseology, not 
changes of substance.” Still we recognize some change, 
though not in essence, and now we should ask whether 
the modifications have sufficiently changed the league 
constitution or covenant as to make it safe for the 
United States of America to enter into this league. 

To this the answer must be in the negative. There 
have been no important changes that are vital improve¬ 
ments in substance. On the contrary, while the cove¬ 
nant may be smoother in its rhetoric, it is even more 
dangerous in what it declares and implies. 

The revised constitution of the league is essentially 
the same as the former one, notwithstanding some 
changes in a few details. It is no better but worse. 

It does not protect the sovereignty of the United 
States, should it go into the league, but puts the great 
United States of America in subordination to the 
league, and, being subordinate to this other power that 
can give direction, and control, if the United States 
enters the league it cannot be the independent nation 
it has been. Its independence will have been surren- 


76 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


dered, and, as a loyal and integral part of the league it 
must submit to the league’s direction and dictation. 

It may be said that the other nations in the league 
will be in the same relation, but that does not make it 
any better, but worse, for it means that a new power 
has been formed which is above, and which commands, 
the nations, and that a new governing body, though not 
a nation, but made up of a few individuals is actually 
a ruling oligarchy over the world. The wonder is how 
any independent nation, great or small, can so demean 
itself as to put itself under such a peculiar governing 
body. 

That able diplomat and very learned lawyer, Sen¬ 
ator Knox, of Pennsylvania, in an address delivered in 
Pittsburgh, on the Second of May, 1919, after he had 
studied the revised covenant of the league, said: 

“The revised draft is more objectionable than 
the original, and that it would be equivalent to national 
suicide to enter into such a compact, and, further, that, 
without authority from the people, the treaty making 
power, or indeed the Congress, cannot delegate to any 
five, nine, or other number of representatives of for¬ 
eign governments powers that the people have dele¬ 
gated to them or reserved to themselves.” 

That is the opinion of one of the greatest of living 
American statesmen, and when he says, after profound 
inquiry that “it would be equivalent to national suicide 
to enter into such a compact,” the people and the re¬ 
sponsible authorities ought to pause and refuse to com¬ 
mit “national suicide” by entering the so-called League 
of Nations. 

None of the amendments made to the constitution 
of the league, or all of them taken together, make any 
essential change in the most serious faultiness of the 
constitution of the League of Nations, and the revised, 
as well as the former constitution, stands as exceed¬ 
ingly defective and most dangerous for the United 


THE REVISED COVENANT 


77 


States of America, and there is no more reason for 
adopting the revised covenant than the first consti¬ 
tution, or any other covenant of such League of Na¬ 
tions. The fundamental principles of the league are 
radically wrong, and no constitution on such a basis can 
be right. Those who opposed the former constitution 
must likewise oppose this covenant. 


V 


THE LEAGUE 

DISTINCT FROM THE TREATY 

When there was brought over from the Peace Con¬ 
ference in Paris, the first covenant or constitution of 
the League of Nations it stood alone, a document by 
itself, and distinct from all other documents. 

It was generally known that the Peace Conference 
was convened to make terms of peace between the Na¬ 
tions that had been at war, and that these terms would 
be placed in another formal instrument to be known as 
the Treaty of Peace. 

That treaty was the real work of the Peace Con¬ 
ference, and, if it had made the peace and formulated 
the terms of the peace in the treaty, and had the neces¬ 
sary signatures and seals appended or attached, the 
world generally would have thought its work com¬ 
pleted, and the conference could with good grace have 
adjourned. It was an extra and extraordinary action 
to introduce the idea, and making, of another thing, 
namely the draft of what was called a League of 
Nations. 

This matter was interjected into the Peace Con¬ 
ference in Paris at an early day, and kept to the front, 
until a draft of a covenant, or constitution, for what 
was termed a League of Nations, or The League of 
Nations, had been made, and it was alleged to be a per¬ 
fect document in language and substance, and this was 
done before the treaty of peace had been finished, and 
a considerable time before it was accepted and signed. 
This is the document of the so-called League of Nations, 
which was styled the covenant or constitution. 

Though it was lauded by many, as we have seen, 
it immediately underwent more or less severe criticism 
in the press, by indivduals in various ranks of society, 


DISTINCT FROM THE TREATY 


79 


and by United States Senators of both political parties 
in the Senate Chamber and elsewhere, and, before the 
President returned to France, he declared that “When 
that treaty comes back, gentlemen on this side will find 
the covenant not only in it, but so many threads of the 
treaty tied to the covenant, that you cannot dissect the 
covenant from the treaty, without destroying the whole 
vital structure.” 

Some may ask why that was said? Certainly it 
was not necessary in the nature of things to unite two 
documents so different in their purpose. One deals 
with difficulties between existing Nations, and growing 
out of the war, while the other propeses to form a new 
political organization that might be attempted if there 
had been no war, and, many a time treaties of peace 
have been framed without forming any League of 
Nations, and leagues and alliances have been formed 
when no treaty of peace was being made. 

The thing that seems perfectly clear is that the 
intention was just what was said, namely, to combine 
the two documents so that there would be “so many 
threads of the treaty tied to the covenant that you 
cannot dissect the covenant from the treaty without 
destroying the whole vital structure.” Such a thing 
never had been done before, and it should not have 
been done now. 

The evident purpose was to prevent the United 
States from making any change in the league covenant 
and in the treaty, and, particularly, in the former. To 
say that a thing is smart is not the highest form of 
compliment, and smartness should never be used against 
one's country or government. The peace commis¬ 
sioners who were American citizens, were not the 
United States, and had no authority to make a treaty 
a finality. They could only bring a formulation for the 
proper authority of the United States to consider, and 
the peace commissioners for the United States did an 


80 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


unpatriotic, improper, and illegal thing, if they tried 
to formulate the treaty so as to defeat the proper au¬ 
thority in the United States, by making it impossible 
for the said authority to act freely and take such action 
as the structure of the Government intended. 

This would apply in the case of a single treaty, 
but it is much worse when such peace commissioners 
take two documents, one a peace treaty and the other a 
scheme for constructing an alliance of Nations, and 
weave the two documents together, or entangle them, so 
that the proper authority of the United States could 
not consider one apart from the other “without destroy¬ 
ing the whole vital structure." If such a thing is not 
a violation of law, it certainly is a violation of propriety 
and of patriotism. 

The very thing predicted, promised, or threatened 
has been attempted, and an effort has been made to 
intertwine both treaties, though on essentially different 
subjects, with the plain intention of preventing a sep¬ 
arate consideration of the Peace Treaty and a separate 
consideration of the covenant of the proposed League 
of Nations, and of forcing the proper authority of the 
United States, namely, the Senate, to act on both at the 
same time, though, naturally, the Senate would have a 
right to scrutinize each one by itself. By this unprec¬ 
edented method the peace commissioners planned to 
destroy the treaty-making liberty of the United States 
and force this Government to vote on two things as 
though they were only one, whereas they are naturally 
two, but the ligaments twining them together are arti¬ 
ficial and, being unnatural, should be regarded as 
illegal. To blend the two was not the fairest way of 
treating the United States by those who professed to 
be its representatives, for the United States should 
have had a fair opportunity for considering each on its 
own merits. 


DISTINCT FROM THE TREATY 


81 


Then the method of commingling the two docu¬ 
ments is illogical, unfair, and, strictly speaking, illegal. 
Thus in the Peace Treaty certain things to be done are 
passed over to the so-called League of Nations. 

But as a matter of fact there was, and is, no 
League of Nations. That was a proposition but not an 
actualization. There was no realized League of Na¬ 
tions in existence. The reference of things to the 
league in the treaty was to a body neither created nor 
organized and which might never come into being. A 
so-called league was proposed but had not been adopted 
and has not yet been adopted. The question of adop¬ 
tion is the question that will come before the United 
States Senate, and for the United States there will be 
no such league if it does not accept it, and the country 
does not enter into it. 

To connect these things with, and hand them over 
to, a league that did not exist was mythical, absurd, and 
without legal force. Such things of themselves 
sever the “many threads'’ that tie the two documents 
together. 

The peace commissioners who are citizens of the 
United States are not the United States, and have no 
right to bind the United States. The commissioners 
cannot gag and trammel the United States Government, 
and the whole Peace Conference cannot do so, and the 
presence of the President of the United States makes 
no change in the situation. There he is not President, 
but simply a commissioner, self-appointed, but, not¬ 
withstanding his abilty and prestige, with only the 
power of a commissioner, and what he approves he 
approves only as a commissioner, and all is subject to 
the approval of the Senate of the United States. 

Even the recommendation of all the commission¬ 
ers has no binding force on the United States Govern¬ 
ment, and the United States, through its proper con¬ 
stitutional authorities, must pass upon and ratify a 


82 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


treaty before it becomes an act of the United States 
of America. 

Further, if the scheme of the Peace Commissioners 
is carried out and the Senate could not consider the two 
distinct matters separately it would mean that the 
peace commissioners and the executive department of 
the Government could alone determine treaties and 
similar matters, and the Senate, under compulsion, 
would be compelled to act accordingly, and this would 
be unconstitutional and revolutionary. 

Any fair-minded person will perceive that the 
Treaty of Peace and the covenant of the League of 
Nations are really two distinct documents, as they rep¬ 
resent two distinct things, and two distinct purposes, 
and no attempt should have been made to interlace or 
commingle them. That such a thing was done in order 
to compel the adoption of the league discounts the 
league and shows a consciousness that there was little 
or no hope of its passage without such an extraordinary 
and questionable procedure. 

Now that it has been attempted, and an effort to 
prevent the free action of the constitutional department 
of the United States Government has been made, it 
should be held as incredible and impossible that the 
United States should be bound and gagged and made 
helpless by the invention and creation of such a situa¬ 
tion, and, particularly, by those who in the preliminary 
action have professed to represent this country, and 
some way must be found to defeat the scheme to shackle 
and defeat the Government. 

There was no necessity for entangling the Peace 
Treaty and the covenant of the League of Nations, and 
it may be held that it was a moral wrong to intertwine 
them, especially with the apparent end in view, and 
that, therefore, the Senate of the United States should 
rise to the occasion, assert its liberty and right, sep- 
arte the two documents, or regard them as separate, 


DISTINCT FROM THE TREATY 


83 


and consider each by itself, and on its own merits. It 
should have a way, find a way, or make a way to do so. 
Peace commissioners should be taught that they cannot 
evade constitutional principles, baffle the Nation, and 
garrote the Senate. 

In the Senate of the United States Senator Phil¬ 
ander C. Knox, of Pennsylvania, introduced resolutions 
bearing on this very point as follows: 

“Whereas the Congress of the United States, in 
declaring, pursuant to its exclusive authority under the 
Constitution, the existence of a state of war between 
the United States and the Imperial German Govern¬ 
ment, solemnly affirmed that the Imperial Government 
had so 'committed repeated acts of war against the 
Government and the people of the United States’ that 
a state of war had been thrust upon them by that Gov¬ 
ernment, and thereupon formally pledged the whole 
military and national resources of the country ‘to bring 
the conflict to a successful terminationand 

“Whereas the Senate of the United States, being a 
co-equal party of the treaty making power of this Gov¬ 
ernment and therefore co-equally responsible for any 
treaty which is concluded and ratified, is deeply con¬ 
cerned over the draft Treaty of Peace negotiated at 
Versailles by which it is proposed to end our victorious 
war, and is gravely impressed by the fact that its pro¬ 
visions appear calculated to force upon us undesirable 
and far-reaching covenants inimical to our free insti¬ 
tutions, under the penalty that, failng to accept these, 
we shall continue in a state of war while our co-bellig- 
erents shall be at peace and enjoying its blessings that 
it is proposed to make us parties to a League of Nations, 
under a plan as to which the people of the United States 
have had neither time to examine and consider nor op¬ 
portunity to express regarding it a matured and delib¬ 
erate judgment. 


84 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


“Whereas the Treaty may be easily so drawn as to 
permit the making of immediate peace, leaving the 
question of the establishment of a League of Nations 
for later determination, and the Treaty as drawn con¬ 
tains principles, guarantees and undertakings oblitera¬ 
tive of legitimate race and national aspirations, op¬ 
pressive of weak nations and peoples, and destructive 
of human progress and liberty; therefore, be it 

“Resolved, by the Senate of the United States, that 
it will regard as fully adequate for our national needs 
and as completely responsive to the duties and obliga¬ 
tions we owe to our co-belligerents and to humanity, a 
Peace Treaty which shall assure to the United States 
and its people the attainment of those ends for which 
we entered the war, and that it will look with disfavor 
upon all treaty provisions going beyond these ends. 

“2. That since the people of the United States have 
themselves determined and provided in their Consti¬ 
tution the only ways in which the Constitution may be 
amended, and since amendment by Treaty stipulation 
is not one of the methods which the people have so 
prescribed, the treaty-making power of the United 
States has no authority to make a treaty which in effect 
amends the Constitution of the United States, and the 
Senate of the United States cannot advise and consent 
to any treaty provision which would have such effect, 
if enforced. 

3. “That the Senate advises, in accordance with 
its constitutional right and duty, that the great para¬ 
mount, if not sole duty of the Peace Conference is 
quickly to bring all the belligerents a full and com¬ 
plete peace; that to this end the treaty shall be so 
drawn as to permit any nation to reserve without 
prejudice to itself for future separate and full con¬ 
sideration by its people the question of any League of 
Nations, that neither such an article nor the exercise 
of the rights reserved thereunder, whether at the time 


DISTINCT FROM THE TREATY 


85 


of signature, the time of ratification, or at any other 
time, shall affect the substance of the obligations of 
Germany and its cobelligerents under the treaty, nor 
the validity of signature and ratification on their be¬ 
half ; and that any indispensable participation by 
the United States in matters covered by the league 
covenant shall, pending the entry of the United States 
into the league, be accomplished through diplomatic 
commissions which shall be created with full power in 
the premises. 

4. “That this resolution indicates and gives 
notice of the limits of the present obligations against 
the United States in which the Senate of the United 
States is now prepared to acquiesce by consenting to 
the ratification of a treaty embodying peace conditions 
that may be found otherwise acceptable to its judg¬ 
ment, and that the adoption by the Peace Conference 
of the foregoing reasonable limitations and positions 
will facilitate the early acceptance of the Treaty of 
Peace by the Senate of the United States, will in no 
wise interfere with the League of Nations as between 
these countries prepared to ratify the treaty without 
further consideration and will afford such a manifes¬ 
tation of real respect for the wishes of a great people 
as can not fail more firmly to cement the friend¬ 
ship already existing between ourselves and our co¬ 
belligerents.” 

These resolutions were called up in the Senate on 
Tuesday, June 17, 1919, and on them Senator Knox 
delivered an elaborate and masterly address. In open¬ 
ing he said: 

“Mr. President: One point I must make at the 
outset, for it is vital and fundamental not only to all 
that I shall say but likewise to all that any other Sena¬ 
tor has said or shall say during this debate: The reso¬ 
lution before us does not call for a vote for or against 
the League of Nations; it does not call for even an ex- 


86 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


pression of an opinion either for or against the league. 
On these points, this resolution is wholly colorless. 
This resolution asks merely and solely that the treaty 
embodying the league shall be in words so framed that 
the Senate may advise and consent to that part of it 
which shall bring us peace, and that it may reserve for 
further consideration that part of it by which it is pro¬ 
posed to make us a part of a projected League of Na¬ 
tions ; 'and this is done in order that the Senate, the 
co-equal partner in the treaty-making power of the 
United States, may have time to consider the league in 
all its aspects, and that the sovereign people of the 
United States, whose agents and representatives the 
Executive and ourselves are, shall have opportunity 
maturely to deliberate upon it, before by our votes we 
fasten it upon them. For, whether good or bad, this 
league, once entered upon and perpetuated, will under 
the compelling force of the combined armies and navies 
of the whole world, control our destiny from now down 
through the full remaining period of recorded time. 

“It can not be that this mere request by the Senate 
for an opportunity fully to study and consider this tre¬ 
mendous question is unreasonable, nor can it be that a 
request that the sovereign people of the United States 
shall have full and equal opportunity calmly to deliber¬ 
ate and decide upon this measure, is unreasonable. This 
being the situation to which this resolution brings us, a 
vote against it is a vote to deny the right of the Senate 
to have time to consider this momentous question, is a 
vote to deny the right of the people calmly and fully to 
consider this great problem, the greatest which has 
been put before them since, through the terrible arbit¬ 
rament of the sword, with all its attendant miseries 
and woes, it was determined that this Union was one 
and inseparable. 

“That such is the effect and the only effect of the 
resolution no one will, I take it, attempt successfully 


DISTINCT FROM THE TREATY 


87 


to deny; and it is my purpose to do what I am able to 
the end that the people of our great nation shall be 
equally advised that this is the full and the only issue 
now before us. This is the whole question. You may 
take it, Senators, and make the most of it.” 

The import of this was that the League of Nations 
should not be entangled with the Treaty of Peace, but 
that the Treaty of Peace should be presented free from 
the League of Nations and be considered on its own 
merits, and, that later the league covenant would be 
considered by the Senate on its own merits. 

Accumulation of immediate business which came 
over from the preceding Congress and had to be com¬ 
pleted by a certain date, caused delay, and in the mean¬ 
time the Treaty of Peace between the Allies and Ger¬ 
many had been signed at Versailles. 


VI 


THE PEACE CONFERENCE CANNOT BIND 
THE UNITED STATES 

When the properly constituted representatives of 
the United States negotiate with representatives, or in 
connection with representatives of other nations, all 
that is done by them is simply preliminary to the action 
of the nation itself. 

This principle holds as to direct treaties and 
formal agreements, but of course there is a difference 
in the matter of arbitration where the Government sub¬ 
mits a disputed question for decision to parties upon 
whom it has agreed. 

Though negotiators or commissioners are duly 
chosen, they have no authority to commit the Govern¬ 
ment, and they have no power to compel the United 
States of America to accept or adopt any treaty or form 
of international agreement, but, on the contrary, the 
United States is unbound by the negotiations and per¬ 
fectly free to consider and decide for itself and even in 
opposition to the wish and work of the commissioners 
or representatives. 

The United States is not bound until it binds itself 
regularly and in the constitutional way, and the respon¬ 
sibility of the representatives or commissioners is 
limited to the work of negotiation and of preparing a 
formulated proposal and submitting that formulation 
to the constitutional body, namely, the United States 
Senate for its consideration and unhampered decision. 

Up to that time the document is only a proposal 
and the Senate is under no obligation or necessity to 
accept or approve the terms of the formulation or the 
proposed agreements or principles it may contain, but 
is free to reject in whole or part. 


CANNOT BIND THE UNITED STATES 89 


That there have been consultations and negotia¬ 
tions gives no right to anybody to demand that the Sen¬ 
ate shall ratify what the commissioners have done, and 
it would be very unseemly for any individual, no matter 
how influential he might be, or the commissioners, or 
an entire Peace Conference, or a mob, or the mass of 
people to try to coerce the Senate in its deliberations, 
and to undertake to prevent that body from reaching 
and expressing its own free judgment. Under oath 
and conscience the senators are bound to do that, and 
any threat or unfair force to prevent such free action 
is a form of immoral treason and an attack on the 
constitutional government. 

The work of the Peace Conference in Paris was 
doubtless very extensive and abounded in details, and 
it is said an immense number of experts, in some degree 
participated in the work, but it seems evident that the 
work of the Peace Conference was delayed and made 
more difficult than was actually necessary. 

That experts of some kind were at work both on 
the Peace Treaty and the covenant of the so-called 
'‘League of Nations” must appear to all experienced 
readers. That there was skill of a kind, and of many 
kinds, is manifest, and some things display an almost 
unearthly ingenuity and an almost superhuman deter¬ 
mination to construct and weave together the two docu¬ 
ments so that they could not be changed, an effort, 
which may lead to a suspicion against both formu¬ 
lations. 

It is apparent that these experts named or un¬ 
named did on their own initiative, or under the direc¬ 
tion of ther superiors, undertake to entangle the Treaty 
of Peace and the League of Nations so that the United 
States Senate could not separate the two documents and 
consider them separately, or that the difficulty would 
be so great as to deter the Senate from making the 
attempt. 


90 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


This was disrespectful to the Senate and a plain 
insult to the United States of America, which is repre¬ 
sented by the Senate, and the entanglement must be so 
regarded, unless it be taken as a confession that the 
framers of the treaty and the league knew that the 
League of Nations could not stand on its own merits, 
and that, therefore, the two were fastened together on 
the principle “united we stand, divided we fall.” But 
the knot that cannot be untied can be cut, and the 
Senate has a right to disentangle the two documents, 
or to cut out the league from the treaty. 

The duty of the Senate is plain. It must maintain 
its own dignity, support the constitution by maintain¬ 
ing its own constitutional rights, and resent any attack, 
or insult, or antagonistic and confusing conspiracy, no 
matter from what source it may come, whether it be 
high or low, official or unofficial, for an attack on the 
Senate within its rights is just as bad, and may be as 
disastrous, as an attack upon the presidency, or on the 
Supreme Court. In any of these cases it would be a 
direct or indirect attack upon the Constitution of the 
land. 

The duty of others toward the Senate is quite as 
important as the duty of the Senate toward others. 

When a prominent man declares that the people 
of the United States will compel the Senate to adopt 
this or that he is defying the constitution and foment¬ 
ing a destructive revolution. 

That is like the Bolshevist enthusiast inciting the 
excited crowd to overturn the beneficent government 
and plunge into governmental chaos. 

Such things are terrible in poor, disturbed and 
ignorant Russia, but in enlightened America with its 
constitutional forms which have preserved law, and 
dispensed justice through the generations, it is hor¬ 
rible, and almost incredible that an American leader 
would even suggest that a legislative body could or 


CANNOT BIND THE UNITED STATES 91 


should be compelled to act under outside clamor, it may 
be mingled with open or tacit threats. 

It is the duty of the United States Senate to stand 
against the machinations of diplomats and the entang¬ 
ling schemes even of a Peace Conference, and it is 
equally the duty of the Senate to stand calmly and 
firmly against popular clamor and the rush of the mob. 

The Senate is to calmly perform its duty and to 
refuse to be coerced or to be cajoled into doing that 
which is not safe or right, and to remember that even 
the Peace Conference cannot bind and compel the Sen¬ 
ate of the United States, and it is the duty of the people 
of the United States to sustain the Senate as it seeks 
to maintain its constitutional rights. 


VII 


RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE SENATE 

The relative powers of the Chief Executive and 
the Senate of the United States, and, particularly, the 
rights and powers of the Senate in the matter of 
making treaties with other countries requires a brief 
mention. 

No reasonable or well-informed person will main¬ 
tain that constitutionally the President has all-power 
in and over the United States, and no sensible and well- 
informed person will maintain that the Senate is with¬ 
out power. 

The President has great power as defined in the 
Constitution, and, likewise the Constitution gives great 
power to the Senate, but neither one has a right to 
trespass on the rights of the other. 

After the first covenant of the so-called League of 
Nations had been agreed upon at the Peace Conference, 
it was stated that the President of the United States 
wanted the United States Senators to refrain from dis¬ 
cussing it until after he returned from Paris. It was 
also announced that the President was determined that 
no change should be made in that draft, unless possibly 
that which was merely verbal, and that he had de¬ 
clared that there would not be any amendment thereto. 

This was interpreted by some as meaning that the 
President seemed to hold that he, and those with him, 
at the Peace Conference in Paris, must make the con¬ 
stitution of the league, and that the Senate of the 
United States must, or should, accept what he brought 
and just as he brought it, or bear the onus of reject¬ 
ing it. 

In view of the Senate's inability to gain exact 
knowledge of what was transpiring at the peace table 
in Paris, and, especially, as to the League of Nations, 


RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE SENATE 93 


there was restiveness and complaints on the part of 
the Senators and others, and it was declared that 
neither the President nor the peace commission could 
finally make a treaty, and that nothing can be a treaty 
binding upon the United States of America, until the 
United States Senate has approved, confirmed, or rati¬ 
fied it by the requisite constitutional vote, and that all 
that can be done by representatives to a body, consider¬ 
ing a possible treaty, is to propose a formulation, 
agreed upon by themselves and other parties, to the 
Senate for its consideration and determination. 

The Constitution of the United States says: “He 
(the President) shall have Power, by and with the 
Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, 
provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” 
(Article II, Section 2). 

The Senate of the United States must, therefore, 
be permitted to consider it without any coercion from 
any source or of any kind, whether it be official pres¬ 
sure or popular clamor. The Senate can take its own 
reasonable time for this consideration and resent any 
effort to disturb its mental poise. 

It can refuse to act upon the treaty at any given 
time, and it can absolutely reject the treaty. It may 
ratify or reject, and it may amend or make reser¬ 
vations. 

It may, if it wishes, specify points to which it 
objects, and give reasons therefor, or it may reject 
without giving any reason. 

The Senate is a dignified and highly responsible 
body, and clothed with vast powers for the protection 
and welfare of the people and should be respected 
accordingly. 

Daniel Webster said: “This is a Senate, a Senate 
of equals, of men of individual honor and personal 
character, and of absolute independence. We know no 
masters, we acknowledge no dictators.” 


94 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


So it was and so it is at the present time. 

It has no superior to decree what it shall do. Its 
very dignity will lead it to recognize and respect the 
various departments of the national government, and, 
on the other hand, it has a right to expect that all the 
departments will show it due respect. 

The great Englishman, James Bryce, in his notable 
work on “The American Commonwealth,” says: 

“The Senate through its right of confirming or 
rejecting engagements with foreign powers, secures a 
general control over foreign policy. It is in the dis¬ 
cretion of the President whether he will communicate 
current negotiations to it and take its advice upon 
them, or will say nothing till he lays a completed treaty 
before it. 

“One or other course is from time to time followed, 
according to the nature of the case, or the degree of 
friendliness existing between the President and the 
majority of the Senate. But in general, the President’s 
best policy is to keep the leaders of the senatorial ma¬ 
jority, and in particular the Committee on Foreign Re¬ 
lations, informed of the progress of any pending nego¬ 
tiation. He thus feels the pulse of the Senate, and 
foresees what kind of arrangement he can induce it 
to sanction, while at the same time a good understand¬ 
ing between himself and his coadjutors is promoted. It 
is well worth his while to keep the Senate in good 
humor, for like other assemblies, it has a collective self¬ 
esteem which makes it seek to gain all the information 
and power it can draw in. 

“The right of going into secret session enables the 
whole Senate to consider despatches communicated by 
the President; and the more important ones, having 
first been submitted to the Foreign Relations Com¬ 
mittee, are thus occasionally discussed without the dis¬ 
advantage of publicity. Of course no momentous secret 
can be kept long, even by the committee, according to 


RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE SENATE 95 


the proverb in the Elder Edda—‘Tell one man thy 
secret, but not two; if three know, the world knows/ 

“This control of foreign policy by the Senate goes 
far to meet that terrible difficulty which a democracy, 
or indeed any free government finds in dealing with 
foreign Powers. If every step to be taken must be 
previously submitted to the governing assembly, the 
nation is forced to show its whole hand, and precious 
opportunities of winning an ally or striking a bargain 
may be lost. If on the other hand the executive is 
permitted to conduct negotiations in secret, there 
is always the risk either that the governing assembly 
may disavow what has been done, a risk which makes 
foreign states legitimately suspicious and unwilling to 
negotiate, or that the nation may have to ratify, be¬ 
cause it feels bound in honour by the act of its execu¬ 
tive agents, arrangements which its judgment con¬ 
demns. The frequent participation of the Senate in 
negotiations diminishes these difficulties, because it ap¬ 
prises the executive of what the judgment of the ratify¬ 
ing body is likely to be, and it commits that body in 
advance. The necessity of ratification by the Senate 
in order to give effect to a treaty, enables the country 
to retire from a doubtful bargain, though in a way 
which other Powers find disagreeable, as England did 
when the Senate rejected the Reverdy Johnson treaty 
of 1869. 

“European statesmen may ask what becomes under 
such a system of the boldness and promptitude so often 
needed to effect a successful coup in foreign policy, or 
how a consistent attitude can be maintained if there is 
in the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee a 
sort of second foreign secretary. The answer is that 
America is not Europe. The problems which the For¬ 
eign Office of the United States has to deal with are 
far fewer and usually far simpler than those of the 
Old World. The republic keeps consistently to her own 


96 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


side of the Atlantic; nor is it the least of the merits of 
the system of senatorial control that it has tended, by 
discouraging the executive from schemes which may 
prove resultless, to diminish the taste for foreign enter¬ 
prises, and to save the country from being entangled 
with alliances, protectorates, responsibilities of all sorts 
beyond its own frontiers. 

“It is easier for the Americans to practise this 
reserve because they need no alliances, standing un¬ 
assailable in their own hemisphere. . . . 

“The Senate may and occasionally does amend a 
treaty, and return it amended to the President. There 
is nothing to prevent it from proposing a draft treaty 
to him, or asking him to prepare one, but this is not 
the practice."* 

In this we note certain facts cited. Thus “The 
Republic keeps consistently to her own side of the 
Atlanticthe system “to save the country from being 
entangled with alliances, protectorates, responsibilities 
of all sorts beyond its own frontiersand the Amer¬ 
icans “need no alliances, standing unassailable in their 
own hemisphere." All these are important points at 
the present time. 

Mr. Woodrow Wilson in his book on “Congres¬ 
sional Government," says of the Senate: “It deals 
directly with the President in acting upon nominations 
and upon treaties. It goes into ‘executive session' to 
handle without gloves the acts of the chief magistrate. 
. . . The greatest consultative privilege of the Sen¬ 
ate,—the greatest in dignity, at least, if not in effect 
upon the interests of the country,—is its right to a rul¬ 
ing voice in the ratification of treaties with foreign 
powers. . . . The President really has no voice at all 
in the conclusions of the Senate with reference to his 
diplomatic transactions, or with reference to any of the 
matters upon which he consults it. . . . The Senate, 


♦James Bryce: American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 102-104. 



RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE SENATE 97 


when it closes its doors, upon going into ‘executive 
session/ closes them upon the President as much as 
upon the rest of the world. He cannot meet their ob¬ 
jections to his courses except through the clogged and 
inadequate channels of a written message or through 
the friendly but unauthoritative offices of some Senator 
who may volunteer his active support. Nay, in many 
cases the President may not even know what the Sen¬ 
ate’s objections were. He is made to approach that 
body as a servant conferring with his master, and 
of course deferring to that master.”* 

Then Mr. Wilson remarks: “His only power of 
compelling compliance on the part of the Senate lies in 
his initiative in negotiation, which affords him a chance 
to get the country into such scrapes, so pledged in the 
view of the world to certain courses of action, that the 
Senate hesitates to bring about the appearance of dis¬ 
honor which would follow its refusal to ratify the rash 
promises or to support the indiscreet threats of the 
Department of State.”f 

But the Senate would have the right and power to 
refuse to concur, to eliminate the objectionable part, or 
to indicate what it refused to accept and be bound. 

Further Mr. Wilson said: 

“The President may tire the Senate by dogged 
persistence, but he can never deal with it upon a ground 
of real equality. He has no real presence in the Senate. 
His power does not extend beyond the most general 
suggestion. The Senate always has the last word. No 
one would desire to see the President possessed of au¬ 
thority to overrule the decisions of the Senate, to treat 
with foreign powers, and appoint thousands of public 
officers, without any other than that shadowy responsi¬ 
bility which he owes to the people that elected him.”$ 


*Woodrow Wilson: Congressional Government, pp. 230-233. 
fWoodrow Wilson: Congressional Government, pp. 233, 234. 
tWoodrow Wilson: Congressional Government, p. 238. 



98 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


Some of the sentences in this work from which we 
quote stand out very prominently in these latter days. 
Thus the “chance” the President has “to get the coun¬ 
try into such scrapes, so pledged to certain courses of 
action, that the Senate hesitates to bring about the 
appearance of dishonor” by refusing “to ratify the 
rash promises or to support the indiscreet threats of 
the Department of State,” and “The President may 
tire the Senate by dogged persistence.” Written years 
ago some may ask whether they do not apply today, 
and whether these very tactics have not been pursued. 

The President by an alleged ignoring of the Senate 
of the United States, by declaring the draft of the 
league constitution must be adopted as it was when he 
made his ad interim visit to the United States, and 
when on landing in Boston he announced that he would 
fight, unfortunately raised an issue between the Chief 
Executive and the United States Senate. 

Under the Constitution of the country the Senate 
has at least as much responsibility and power as the 
President of the United States in the making of a 
treaty with a foreign power and could not be com¬ 
pelled to accept a ready made draft of a treaty at the 
dictation or solicitation of a President or any one else, 
no matter how great and learned he might be. 

Under the Constitution the President cannot make 
a treaty. He can only propose one, and it is not made 
until the Senate concurs. 

The Senate must have the say that completes the 
transaction, and it makes no difference that the draft 
is drawn in a Peace Conference any more than if it 
was framed by two or three individuals in time of 
peace, and it does not change the situation if the Presi¬ 
dent himself does the unprecedented thing in American 
history of sitting in a Peace Conference held in a 
foreign country. 


RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE SENATE 99 


The Senate is compelled by law to study the ques¬ 
tion for itself and to have its say, and no power in the 
executive department, or in the press, or in popular 
demand has a right to coerce or attempt to coerce this 
great constitutional body which represents the people 
and is charged with grave responsibilities in behalf of 
the entire nation. 

The Senate, therefore, has a right to think for it¬ 
self and to express itself on this matter, and even to 
resent anything that suggested coercion or compulsory 
influence from any source. 

Each Senator has a right to consider what is pro¬ 
posed, and, if he believes the proposition is violative 
of the Constitution, or against the interests of the na¬ 
tion, he has a perfect right to say so, and to use his 
legitimate power to prevent its acceptance, and so has 
every Senator and every assembled Senate. 

Not only had the Senators a right to express their 
dissatisfaction with the draft of the proposed league, 
but it was better for all concerned that the Senators 
serve notice in time, than to wait until the last moment 
and then spring a surprise. In this they were fair, 
honorable, and even magnanimous. They served notice 
and, so, those concerned could govern themselves 
accordingly. 

Those trying to frame a treaty may see the diffi¬ 
culties in the way and do what they think is best, but, 
after that the Senate, with perfect fairness, is free to 
accept, reject, amend, postpone, lay upon the table, or 
amend or qualify what may be brought. In brief, they 
have power, and it is the duty of the Senators, to make 
the treaty what it ought to be or to absolutely reject 
it entirely. That is their duty to their country and 
that is one reason why they are Senators, and that 
there is a Senate. 

It is, therefore, a great wrong to the Senate for 
anybody, or any group, or the people generally, to try 


100 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


to intimidate the Senate or the Senator by threats of 
political punishment or in any other way, and, partic¬ 
ularly, for papers to caricature or ridicule in any way 
a learned, able, and patriotic Senator who is sincerely 
striving to protect the interests of his country. Any 
wise Senator is more than willing to receive suggestions 
but he must be true to his own convictions, his own 
conscience, and to the Constitution of the United States 
of America to which he has sworn allegiance. 

There are some things the Senate of the United 
States cannot legally do. The Senate cannot violate the 
Constitution of the United States, or approve or tol¬ 
erate anything in or by the Senate that does violence 
to the Constitution, and the oath of the Senator is as 
binding as the oath of the President of the United 
States. So the Senate must with its intelligence, and 
on its conscience, scrutinize everything proposed to, or 
in, it, and should reject everything which is contrary 
to the Constitution or the genius of the country, and, 
where there is a doubt, it should give the Constitution 
and the nation the benefit of the doubt, and not approve 
anything that is not clearly constitutional. 

For the same reasons the Senate must not sacrifice 
the country either from political bias or for any tem¬ 
porary advantage. The Senate has its rights which 
should be recognized, but the country also has its rights 
under the Constitution, and these rights likewise must 
be regarded, but in its deliberations and decisions the 
Senate should not be swayed by the mob, or popular 
clamor, or force of arms, or by official or political 
pressure, or by any other external influence. Each 
Senator must perform his duty regardless of personal 
consequences. He must not be coerced and he must not 
be cajoled. 

A Senator may commit treason but all senators 
are not likely to do so, and a free Senate is not likely 



RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE SENATE 101 


to do so. It is, therefore, most important that the 
absolute freedom of the Senate should be maintained. 

It is likely that some one Senator knows as much 
as any other single man, for in the Senate are scholars 
and experienced statesmen, and, it is more than prob¬ 
able that the whole Senate, as a body, knows as much 
as to state affairs as any little outside group that may 
gather anywhere. 

To be a Senator is to hold a dignified and lofty 
position, and, perhaps, not surpassed by any other. 
It is his duty to think for the nation and at the right 
time to express himself with perfect independence, and 
not to be overborne by any form of force or to be 
outmaneuvered by finesse, and in the free United 
States it is not treason for a Senator to differ even 
with the President of the United States, nor is it even 
lese majeste, a crime against the sovereign, for that 
belonged to old autocratic Germany but never to 
America where the people are sovereign. It is the duty 
of the Senate to maintain the Constitution and some¬ 
times it may be the duty of the Senate to save the 
Nation from itself. 


VIII 


AMERICA’S FOREIGN POLICY 

The American policy in regard to foreign alliances 
always has been in favor of a righteous and friendly 
independence, and in opposition to any permanent alli¬ 
ance with a foreign power, or with foreign govern¬ 
ments. 

In this way the United States of America has pre¬ 
served peace by avoiding entanglements with the com¬ 
plications of foreign nations, has retained respect and 
friendship that otherwise would have been lost, and, 
as a result America has had marvelous prosperity. 

This foreign policy did not reduce the United 
States to a weak or effeminate nation for, as her his¬ 
tory shows, she could both defend herself at home, and 
also make war in most aggressive form in foreign 
territory. 

Neither did this render the United States indiffer¬ 
ent as to what was transpiring in other parts of the 
world, for she has intervened when a just occasion 
arose, and most magnificently, with her billions of 
money and her millions of men, in the recent war, but 
she did it as a great and independent nation, and not 
at the dictate of any earthly power. 

The United States could form a temporary alliance 
for a definite and immediate purpose, as she did with 
France in the War for Independence, but she would not 
make a permanent alliance even with France, yet in a 
later day she could for France pour out her food, her 
money, and her blood in the great World War, but did it 
as a free and untrammeled nation. 

No one phrased the American policy as to alliances 
better than its first President, George Washington. 

Washington was opposed to a permanent alliance 
with any other country, and with him this was a per¬ 
manent conviction. 


AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY 


103 


In his “Farewell Address to the People of the 
United States," he said: “Against the insidious wiles 
of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fel¬ 
low-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be 
constantly awake; since history and experience prove 
that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes 
of Republican Government. . . . 

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to for¬ 
eign Nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, 
to have with them as little political connexion as pos¬ 
sible. So far as we have already formed engagements, 
let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let 
us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which 
to us have none, or a very remote, relation. Hence she 
must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes 
of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. 
Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate 
ourselves by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes 
of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and col¬ 
lisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached 
and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue 
a different course. . . . 

“Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situa¬ 
tion ? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign 
ground ? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that 
of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and pros¬ 
perity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, in¬ 
terest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer 
clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the 
foreign world. . . . 

“Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable 
establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we 
may safely trust to temporary alliances for extra¬ 
ordinary emergencies. . . . 

“Constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in 
one Nation to look for disinterested favors from an¬ 
other ; that it must pay with a portion of its independ- 


104 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


ence for whatever it may accept under that character; 
that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the 
condition of having given equivalents for nominal fa¬ 
vors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for 
not giving more. There can be no greater error than 
to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to 
nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, 
which a just pride ought to discard.”* 

What wonderful words are these from the father 
of this country! 

He warns against “artificial ties” and “permanent 
alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” and 
points out that as to foreign nations we should “have 
with them as little political connexion as possible.” 

“Europe,” he tells us “has a set of primary in¬ 
terests which, to us have none, or a very remote rela¬ 
tion. Hence she must be engaged in frequent contro¬ 
versies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to 
our concern.” “Hence, therefore,” he continues, “it 
must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial 
ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the 
ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships 
or enmities.” 

Then he points out the geographical advantage of 
the United States which indicates and makes easy our 
duty to keep out of foreign entanglements. So Wash¬ 
ington says: “Our detached and distant situation In¬ 
vites and enables us to pursue a different course.” 

Then he says: “Why forego the advantages of so 
peculiar a situation?” “Why, by interweaving our 
destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our 
peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, 
rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?” 

Why, indeed? “It is our true policy,” he said, “to 
steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of 
the foreign world.” 


^Washington’s Farewell Address, September 17th, 1796. 



AMERICA’S FOREIGN POLICY 


105 


All these are eternal and immensely valuable 
words, just as true today as they were when first writ¬ 
ten, and they will be just as true tomorrow, and the 
morrows yet to come. 

He tells us we may make ‘‘temporary alliances for 
extraordinary emergencies,” but never a “permanent 
alliance.” All these words we should repeat over and 
over again until we remember them perfectly and recall 
them promptly, and then we should honor them by fol¬ 
lowing Washington’s advice. 

These were wise and almost inspired words from 
“The Father of his Country,” and they were the opin¬ 
ions of the wisest statesmen of the time, for Washing¬ 
ton had the aid of Madison and of that marvelous man, 
Alexander Hamilton, who had much to do with phras¬ 
ing the “Farewell Address.” 

Washington was opposed to “permanent alliances” 
with foreign countries, but in favor of constant pre¬ 
paredness, and freedom to act according to circum¬ 
stances, and sometimes with “temporary alliances.” 

The proposed League of Nations is a permanent 
alliance and to that the Farewell Address was opposed 
and to such foreign alliances its living principles still 
are opposed. 

Jefferson held the same sentiments as Washington 
on this point, and thus wrote to President Monroe: 
“America, both North and South, has interests abso¬ 
lutely distinct from those of Europe, which belong to 
her alone. It is necessary, therefore, to establish the 
principles of a system which shall keep those interests 
separate from those of the Old World. While the latter 
is trying to make itself the home of despotism our 
hemisphere is trying to make itself the land of liberty.” 

James Madison had the same view as to the proper 
attitude of the American Republic. Thus he said: 
“The United States . . . are especially disinclined to 
become a party to the complicated and general warfare 


106 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


which agitates another quarter of the globe for the 
purpose of obtaining a separate and particular object, 
however interesting to them.* 

On this point there was marked agreement among 
the Fathers of the Republic. 

Shortly after the close of the Civil War, President 
Andrew Johnson, tuching this precise point, in his first 
message, said: 


“Under any circumstances our great extent of 
territory and variety of climate, producing almost 
everything that is necessary for the wants and even 
the comforts of man, make us singularly independent 
of the warring policy of foreign Powers, and protect 
us against every temptation to entangling alliances 
while . . . the strength that comes from harmony will 
be our best security against Nations who feel power 
and forget right.”f 

A later and most distinguished Democratic Presi¬ 
dent, Grover Cleveland, has supported the Washing¬ 
tonian view in the following utterance: 

“The genius of our institutions, the needs of our 
people in their home life, and the attention which is 
demanded for the settlement and development of the 
resources of our vast territory, dictate the scrupulous 
avoidance of any departure from that foreign policy 
commended by the history, the traditions, and the pros¬ 
perity of our Republic. It s the policy of independence, 
favored by our position, and defended by our known 
love of justice and by our own power. It is the policy 
of peace suitable to our interests. It is the policy of 
Monroe, and of Washington and Jefferson—‘Peace, 
commerce, and honest friendship with all Nations; en¬ 
tangling alliance with none.’ ” 

Some one may say that the Washingtonian view 
m antiquated opinion; that circumstances have 

James Madison: Writings, Vol. Ill, p. 28. 
fPresident Andrew Johnson: First Message, December 4, 1865. 




AMERICA’S FOREIGN POLICY 


107 


changed since Washington’s day, and that, if he were 
living now, Washington would not say what he did in 
his Farewell Address. 

Who has a right to say that? By what authority 
does any one say that Washington would now speak 
differently? There is no authority and there is no 
sound reason for saying it. To say it is a sheer assump¬ 
tion—a bald and unsupported assumption. To it a suffi¬ 
cient answer is a direct denial, and we deny that if 
Washington were living today he would speak differ¬ 
ently. We deny it, and no one can prove the contrary. 

We known that down through a long line of Ameri¬ 
can Statesmen Washington’s view against permanent 
foreign alliances has been held most tenaciously as the 
true American policy, and not only has it been held 
by the statesmen but also by the people of this country. 

Further, the facts and circumstances that induced 
Washington to express himself against permanent alli¬ 
ances have not changed but remain the same. 

The facts he cites as to other nations still are true, 
and will continue to be true as long as human nature 
remains what it has been through the ages, and is 
what it is. 

It is also just as true today as it was in Washing¬ 
ton’s time, that our land has a “detached and distant 
situation,” as related to the old worlds. Oceans still 
roll between, and no invention has removed that abid¬ 
ing fact. 

It may be said there are faster vessels to cross 
from the other side, but the United States has faster 
vessels to meet them halfway or before they reach this 
coast. They may have their airplanes and sea-planes 
from the other side, but the United States has her air¬ 
planes to intercept them, and all these things plus the 
big ocean with its distance and size still a barrier. 

The great point in the mind of Washington was 
the importance of keeping free from the affairs, the 




108 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


controversies, and complications of other Nations, and, 
so he opposed “permanent alliances with any portion 
of the foreign world," and pointed out that the Nation 
“must pay with a portion of its independence for what¬ 
ever it may accept under that character." The great 
point with him was the preservation of the independ¬ 
ence of the United States in its entirety, of which the 
country could not afford to lose any “portion," but if 
it went into any “permanent alliance" it could not avoid 
losing “a portion of its independence." 

Then he alluded to the providential setting of the 
United States in the wide oceans far from the old 
worlds as though God intended that the Nation should 
be separate from the local complications of the world 
beyond the great sea, and stand forth in its independ¬ 
ence, a growing Nation with its own peculiar mission. 


After all these long years there is no good reason 
for departing from the teachings of Washington and 
all the great statesmen down to this very time. 

Why should a great and independent nation, iso¬ 
lated territorially from the older continents by three 
thousand miles of salt water on one side, and five 
thousand miles of salt water on the other side, and 
free to act anywhere and at any time, put itself in any 
degree under the direction or dictation of other na¬ 
tions, and particularly of a little group of four or five 
persons who want to rule the world in multitudinous 
affairs ? 

The facts that led to Washington's advice remain 
/today as they were when Washington issued his Fare¬ 
well. 

In proof of that we have President Woodrow Wil¬ 
son’s citation and emphatic indorsement of the words 
of President Washington when, on the eighth of Jan¬ 
uary, 1914, in an address in the City of Washington, 
he used the following language: 


AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY 


109 


“There are just as vital things stirring now that 
concern the existence of the Nation as were stirring 
then—to wit, in Washington's time—and every man 
who worthily stands in this presence should examine 
himself and see whether he has the full conception of 
what it means. America should live her own life. 
Washington saw it when he wrote his Farewell Ad¬ 
dress. It was not merely because of passing and tran¬ 
sient circumstances that Washington said we must keep 
from entangling alliances. It was because he saw that 
no country had yet set its face in the same direction in 
which America had set her face. We cannot form alli¬ 
ances with those who are not going our way, and in 
our might and in the confidence and definiteness of our 
own purpose we need not and we should not form alli¬ 
ances with any nation in the world. Those who are 
right, those who study their consciences in determin¬ 
ing their policy, those who hold their honor higher 
than their advantages, do not need alliances. When 
we go out from this presence we ought to take the idea 
with us that we too are devoted to the purpose of en¬ 
abling America to live her own life, to be the justest, 
the most progressive, the most honorable, the most 
enlightened Nation in the world." 

Nothing can say or show more clearly that the ad¬ 
vice of Washington applies now to the United States 
of America than these words of his successor, Presi¬ 
dent Woodrow Wilson, delivered only a short time ago, 
after he had been in the presidency over two years. 

Nothing has occurred since to change the direc¬ 
tion or force of his pertinent words of Nineteen Hun¬ 
dred and Fourteen. 

The war and its outcome only demonstrate more 
clearly than ever before that America can grandly per¬ 
form her duty to the world without being in any league 
or other permanent alliance of nations, and the ex¬ 
periences of the Peace Conference in its internal 


110 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


wrangles, and the present possibilities and probabil¬ 
ities in Europe and other parts of the world, show more 
strongly than ever that America should adhere to the 
wisdom of Washington and not enter into “permanent 
alliances” with foreign nations, but, as President Wil¬ 
son says: “America should live her own life” for “we 
need not and we should not form alliances with any 
nation in the world,” and that “we too are devoted to 
the purpose of enabling America to live her own life, 
to be the justest, the most progressive, the most honor¬ 
able, the most enlightened nation in the world” and 
that without “entangling alliances.” 

And the same P reside nt Wilso n, on the first of 
February, 1916, still adhering to Washington’s view, 
s^id: 

“There are actually men in America who are 
preaching war, who are preaching the duty of the 
United States to do what it never would before, seek 
entanglement in the controversies which have arisen 
on the other side of the water—abandon its habitual 
and traditional policy and deliberately engage in the 
conflict which is now engulfing the rest of the world. 
I do not know what the standard of citzenship of these 
gentlemen may be. I only know that I for one cannot 
subscribe to those sentiments.” 

These words pronounced by President Wilson since 
he entered the presidency are positive and unanswer¬ 
able arguments against the League of Nations and 
any other similar foreign alliance and should be heeded 
by President Wilson’s friends and all true Americans. 

These agreeing sentiments of President Washing¬ 
ton, President Cleveland, and President Wilson should 
be appreciated by the Congress and people of the 
United States, and they should keep the Nation free 
from “permanent alliances” with foreign powers and 
from the “mischiefs of foreign intrigues,” as Wash¬ 
ington said; the “avoidance of any departure from that 


AMERICA’S FOREIGN POLICY 


111 


foreign policy commended by the history, the tradi¬ 
tions, and the prosperity of our Republic. It is the 
policy of independence. ... It is the policy of Monroe, 
and of Washington and Jefferson—‘Peace, commerce, 
and honest friendship with all Nations; entangling 
alliance with none,’” as Cleveland said; and as Wik 
son said: “North America should live her own life.1 
Washington saw it when he wrote his Farewell Ad J 
dress,” and “It was not merely because of passing and 
transient circumstances that Washington said we must 
keep from entangling alliances,” wise judgments com¬ 
ing down to the present time and strongly indorsed by 
the present President, Mr. Wilson. 

Plainly if the Nation will follow the advice of these 
eminent men, and, particularly that of President Wil¬ 
son, the United States will keep out of this League of 
Nations. 

This is a question into which political partisanship 
should not come, but the Nation should be swayed by 
the true Americanism of the great and patriotic states¬ 
men who have maintained on this point the true Ameri¬ 
can policy, and, included therein is President Wilson, 
and his friends should not go against him and this view 
of his by going into the League of Nations which is the 
most intense and most intricate form of a foreign 
alliance. 

If it be suggested that President Wilson has 
abandoned his support of Washington, and now favors 
the League of Nations, then it must be regarded as un¬ 
fortunate that the President of 1918 and 1919 should 
be against the President of 1914 and 1916, who still 
is President, but after repeatedly indorsing Washing¬ 
ton on this point, and that so recently, we would trust 
that his apparent departure from the true American 
faith was, or is, only a temporary aberration, and 
that there may be a speedy restoration to a normal 
condition. 


112 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


However that may be, Wilson with Washington is 
a safer guide than Wilson against Washington and 
Wilson. 

The proposition now presented is called a League 
of Nations. Then, if a league, it is something that will 
bind this nation to other nations, which is contrary 
to the long established policy of America. For a strong 
nation to permit itself to be so bound seems unnatural, 
for, on general principles, a nation should be free from 
the claims and dominance of other nations, and should 
so wish to be. 

Certainly there should be an exceedingly strong 
reason for giving up any portion of that American in¬ 
dependence, and, when the bond is proposed, there 
should be no haste in accepting it, but the nation should 
think carefully and act deliberately, and, especially, 
when the contract is a continuing one, and not merely 
for the present and for some specific and temporary 
purpose. 

The American idea has always been against such 
a continuing bond, and in favor of absolute independ¬ 
ence of the United States of America, and to preserve 
an independent, respected, and influential America, 
the country should adhere to the time honored Ameri¬ 
can policy of no “permanent alliances” with foreign 
countries. 

With this American foreign policy firmly estab¬ 
lished from the beginning of the Nation, from Wash¬ 
ington to Wilson, and, after President Wilson’s clear 
reaffirmations of the Washington and American policy 
against permanent foreign alliances, which President 
Wilson made in 1914 and 1916, it seems strange to 
find him trying by all the force under his control to 
thrust the United States of America into a foreign alli¬ 
ance, euphemistically called “The League of Nations,” 
and still more astounding was it to hear him, in his 
address to the Senate of the United States, on the 


AMERICA’S FOREIGN POLICY 


113 


tenth of July, 1919, announce that the League of Na¬ 
tions—that being the connection, and that being what 
he meant—should be sustained “at whatever cost of in¬ 
dependent action,” by this government and every gov¬ 
ernment to help the world. 

It was something new for a President of the 
United States of America to teach his country to sink 
or destroy its independence for any purpose, and cer¬ 
tainly it was not in harmony with the Constitution of 
this independent country which he had sworn to main¬ 
tain. If that was the effect of his long residence in 
Europe and from his personal contact with the repre¬ 
sentatives of European powers, then it was a sad day 
for America when President Wilson absented himself 
from his own country to attend the Peace Conference 
in a foreign land. Just what could have brought about 
such a speedy contradiction in his sentiments and ut¬ 
terances may not now be pointed out but the change 
was not in the line of Americanism. It was antag¬ 
onistic to the American policy, contradictory to his own 
former, and recent statements, and seems to be out of 
perfect harmony with the presidential oath, that he 
will “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution 
of the United States,” which protects the independence 
of the United States. 

One point is to be noted, namely, that the pro¬ 
moters of the League of Nations have declared that 
the league did not and would not affect the sovereignty, 
or independence of the United States, but, when the 
President of the United States urges the United States 
to support the league “at whatever cost of independent 
action,” he admitted that the nation that entered the 
league, and so combined with foreign powers, did lose 
the power of independent action, that is to say lost its 
independence or sovereignty. The League of Nations, 
according to the teachings of the President, was to 
“destroy the old order of international politics,” but 


114 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


the nation that entered the league in order to do this 
would enter at the “cost of independent action,” and, 
hence, if the United States entered the League of Na¬ 
tions, it would do so at the “cost of (its) independent 
action,” would lose its independence, and would become 
dependent upon the foreign nations in the league. 

At least it is well at last to have the truth, and 
this is a confession of the truth from the President 
of the United States, that the American policy would 
be destroyed and the sovereignty of the United States 
would be lost if this country became a partner in the 
League of Nations. 


IX 


WHAT THE LEAGUE REALLY IS 

Before considering specifically what the so-called 
League of Nations is, one should try to ascertain what 
it is not, for this may eliminate some misconceptions 
that would interfere with clearness of view and ac¬ 
curacy of reasoning. 

This is a fundamental matter for, unless there is 
an accurate understanding as to what this league is, 
no correct inference can be drawn and no reliable 
opinion can be expressed in regard to it, and a little 
inquiry will show that at this very time a large number 
of those who favor the league have no adequate knowl¬ 
edge as to what the league really is. They have been 
told thus and so, and suppose thus and so, but they 
do not know what is so. The fact is that many have 
been deceived by miscellaneous and superficial state¬ 
ments, or they have been self-deceived by their own 
wishes and their well-intended hopes. 

Some imagine that the so-called League of Nations 
is a combination, or alliance, of all the nations, or, at 
least, of all the chief nations of the earth. This how¬ 
ever, is a fundamental error. 

A study of the proposed constitution of the league 
will show that the league is not a League of the Na¬ 
tions, as some have supposed. 

It is not, by any means, a league of all the nations 
of the world. It has in it, according to the proposi¬ 
tion, some nations, but it is far from being a league 
of all the nations. 

Actually it is a League of Nations which have been 
actively antagonistic to certain other nations. In other 
words, it is a league of the “Allies,” recently at war 
with Germany and other central European powers. 

It represents only one side in the recent war, 
namely, that of the “Allies,” and is made up chiefly, 


116 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


and preponderating^, of the “four big powers,” or the 
“big four,” as they have been styled, notwithstanding 
the fact that the President of the United States said, 
in his Manchester speech, that there must be “all or 
none.” It does not contain “all,” and, therefore, ac¬ 
cording to the President, there should be none, that is 
to say, no league. 

Plainly it is not a league of all the nations, and, 
evidently, some are not wanted in it, at least not just 
now, and it is quite as plain that some nations have 
no desire to enter, and have no purpose of entering it. 

Thus the three Scandinavian kingdoms of Nor¬ 
way, Sweden, and Denmark, in January, 1919, drew up 
a proposition against an international parliament 
which is one of the things the League of Nations pro¬ 
poses, but they did favor an “International Juridical 
Organization” which might render judicial decisions 
and which seems somewhat like the Hague Tribunal. 

Switzerland, likewise, is not purposing to enter 
this so-called League of Nations, but has formally ex¬ 
pressed itself against some of the most distinct declara¬ 
tions of the said league. In January, 1919, the Swiss 
Confederation drew up what might be called a counter¬ 
plan, in which it antagonized the league’s article 
(Article XVI), asserting the right of armies acting 
under the league to have passage through the terri¬ 
tories of a nation. Of itself and similar countries it 
said: 

“The territory of these States is inviolable and 
shall always remain outside military operations in 
case of wars in which States not forming a part of 
the League of Nations participate, as well as when 
military measures are taken by members of the league 
itself, in order to secure respect for law or the main¬ 
tenance of peace,” and, in addition, Switzerland de¬ 
clares her intention to protect her territory by force 
of arms. 


WHAT THE LEAGUE REALLY IS 117 


All this is squarely against Article XVI of the 
league constitution, which pledges the member-states 
in the promise that “they will afford passage through 
their territory to the forces of any of the high con¬ 
tracting parties (i.e., any of the members of the 
league), who are co-operating to protect the covenants 
of the league.” 

With Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, 
Germany, Austria, Russia, and other countries not in 
the league, the league would be far from being a 
league of the nations of the world. 

Moreover it is not a league of nations, for in it 
the nations are not to act and communicate directly 
with each other, as nations, using the regular diplo¬ 
matic mechanism of the nations, but the nations, as na¬ 
tions, are to be pushed into the hazy background, and 
some other organization, or body politic, is to do the 
work that the nations did, so that the nations directly, 
as nations, take a secondary position, and do not imme¬ 
diately or primarily do the directing, and that arrange¬ 
ment is not, strictly speaking, a league of nations. 

In the League of Nations the idea of the self- 
controlled nation is relegated to the rear, and some¬ 
thing else—some new invention, takes its place. The 
nation, with the national idea, is subordinated, and 
something else is substituted, so that the title League 
of Nations becomes a misnomer, for it is not a League 
of Nations, but the nations are under a superior gov¬ 
ernment. 

It should be repeated, and that with emphasis, 
that the so-called League of .Nations is not a league 
of nations, each nation communicating directly with 
the other nations, and using existing governmental 
machinery, but an over-body and over-government 
directing the affairs of the nations of the world, with 
its own fixed capital, having its own departments of 
government, having its own corps of officials of various 


118 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


ranks, and, probably, sooner or later to have at the 
top one with a dominating will, who, in the course of 
years, may develop into a supreme potentate, before 
whom Kings, Emperors and Presidents may bow and 
beg for favors, so that in a little time, the nations 
who fought against autocracy, may find that they have 
built themselves into the greatest autocracy the world 
has ever known. As strange things as that have hap¬ 
pened with credulous human beings, and those who 
know history know that is a way such investments of 
power have of growing and strengthening their power. 

It is not a league of nations at all. Not only 
is there not direct dealing of nation with nation, but 
these nations propose to create a superior body with 
superior power over the nations. 

In other words, it is not a genuine league of na¬ 
tions, but a super-government, or superior political 
power, which these nations create and elevate above 
themselves, that is to say, they make themselves sub¬ 
ordinate to the creature they have made and placed 
over themselves, or in other words, they make them¬ 
selves inferior, and obedient, to this idol made by their 
own hands. 

That is what it is, not a league of nations, but 
a new political power, which in the moment of blind 
infatuation, or deliberate planning, a few persons have 
manufactured out of the human clay, which they found 
around them, and mixed with short-sighted and dis¬ 
torted visions, which some short-thoughted minds 
imagined to be idealism. 

For a person to say, “Oh, no, it is not that,” has 
no force. It is no argument, but here are the facts, 
and the facts prove what is here stated. 

The thing so created by these nations is interna¬ 
tional and super-national, and, so, above the nations, 
as Senator Beveridge has phrased it, an “international 
superstate.” 


WHAT THE LEAGUE REALLY IS 119 


It is to have its capital city in a foreign country, 
namely, Geneva, in Switzerland. It is to have its 
capitol building—its casa de gobierno, as the Spanish 
say,—its government palace; its secretariat; its gov¬ 
ernmental departments, with their corps of secretaries; 
its courts and growing laws; and, of course, its head, 
who may be a man or woman, though at present the 
title has not been divulged, but, one might imagine, it 
may be Czar or Czarina, as the case might require, 
though at first the title will probably be in the mas¬ 
culine or neuter gender. 

Of course, sooner or later, there will be a some¬ 
what fully developed court with all its distinctions and 
proprieties, and, naturally there will be its Treasury 
and Department of Financial Accounts, perhaps with 
its own currency, and its mint and government print¬ 
ing house, with its bank-note press on which it can 
make money ad libitum . Indeed it is to be presumed 
that nothing desirable will be lacking, for ambitions 
must be gratified and logic must be regarded. As a 
few men will be in control, it can easily be done. 

As a matter of fact, it is not a simple league of 
nations at all, but the creation of a new world power— 
and over-state made up of a few persons, an oligarchy, 
with power to direct and deal with the submissive na¬ 
tions, and the United States is asked to put itself into 
the hands of the few men who are, in a very broad 
sense, to rule the world, when neither they nor their 
nations are entirely sanctified in character or infallible 
in their judgment, and, therefore are not absolutely 
dependable. 

The true nature of this proposed super-organiza¬ 
tion should be distinctly kept in view. It is intended to 
be a new body with new powers which never belonged 
to any nation, or any group of nations, but which now 
it is proposed to apply to the nations in the league and 
to nations not in the league, and some hope to see the 


120 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


whole world controlled by a little coterie not numbering 
as many as one’s fingers, and, probably, meeting in 
secret as the council of four at the Peace Conference, 
and this is the outcome of the great war to “make the 
world safe for democracy,” by covenants secretly ar¬ 
rived at. 

This fact of a new super-government was promptly 
detected by the three Scandinavian kingdoms when 
they protested against an “international parliament,” 
and pointed out that it would be “an auhority superior 
to the States,” and announced that the small States in 
particular would offer “energetic opposition” to any 
plan which, in the classification of States, even im¬ 
plied a “graduated scale.” 

The proposed league is not merely a league of 
nations that proposes to prevent war, as many people 
have been led to suppose. Even if it does aim at limit¬ 
ing or preventing war, that is only one out of a multi¬ 
tude of aims which it has distinctly and emphatically 
announced, and Mr. Wilson has said: “It is a league 
which can be used for cooperation in any international 
matter.” 

That means very many things, but from what the 
league says of itself, we know that it is so constructed 
as to claim the right at any time to go beyond strictly 
“international” matters and to reach into the national 
and meddle with internal affairs. Thus labor runs into 
the internal, and is almost entirely internal, that is to 
say, within the nation or country. 

It proposes many other things than affairs beyond 
national lines. Many things are specified in its con¬ 
stitution, and the council of the league could by a 
liberal interpretation of the constitution claim almost 
anything it desired to undertake. 

Some things are quite indefinite, and, some think, 
possibly are left in that indefinite state for the time, 
in order not to seem to claim too much just now, but 


WHAT THE LEAGUE REALLY IS 


121 


one may easily see how in practice they can later read 
many things into the terms of the law, and, after 
awhile, by amendment, they may be plainly inserted, 
and also, without any intention, there may be a natural 
growth in that direction. When that point is reached, 
and long before, the league will determine the amend¬ 
ments, and will have immensely more power than the 
subsidiary nations. 

As an illustration, it will be noticed that the 
league proposes to meddle with, and regulate, the labor 
of the world. Thus, according to Article XX of the 
first constitution, it was proposed “to establish as part 
of the organization of the league a permanent bureau 
of labor,” and, according to Article XXIII, of the re¬ 
vised covenant, “the members of the league are to 
establish and maintain the necessary international 
organizations.” 

And so we read that, on April 18, 1919, the report 
of the committee on international labor legislation, 
which drafted a program to govern international regu¬ 
lation of employment conditions, was adopted by the 
Peace Conference, and this program shows, not only a 
comprehensive purpose, but also presents an outline 
plan which suggests many details that will bring the 
activities of the league in close relation with the 
internal and intimate affairs of the nations. 

This means practically that the United States, if it 
goes into the League of Nations, will not be free to 
make her labor laws, or her regulations of business, 
according to her own judgment, for the league will at 
least exert the pressure of investigation and sugges¬ 
tion, and of law. 

The labor question is almost entirely, or quite en¬ 
tirely, an internal question, and any “international 
regulation of employment’" must interfere with the in¬ 
ternal relations of two or more nations. That is get¬ 
ting very close to meddling with a nation’s internal 


122 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


affairs. Indeed it is internal meddling, and prying 
into the private concerns of the people, and some who 
express themselves in strong language may speak of it 
as infernal meddling. 

The Treaty of Peace has revealed the enormity 
of the purposes to link up ‘The League of Nations” 
with the labor problems of all the nations of the world. 

The Treaty of Peace, Part 13. Labor, makes plain 
the sweeping purpose of dealing with labor conditions 
and the intention of establishing labor organizations, 
and “Chapter I ( organization) Article 387,” declares: 
“A permanent organization is hereby established for 
the promotion of the objects (labor) set forth in the 
preamble. The original members of the League of 
Nations shall be the original members of the organiza¬ 
tion, and hereafter membership of the League of Na¬ 
tions shall carry with it membership of the said or¬ 
ganization,” and then follows the provisions for a gen¬ 
eral conference, and an international labor office to 
deal with industrial matters. 

This linking the league with the capital and labor 
troubles of the nations of the earth, means that if the 
United States goes into the League of Nations it 
will as a government not only have immense perplexi¬ 
ties to deal with in the industrial activities of its own 
land, but it will have interminable difficulties with 
the diversified populations in all the continents and in 
the islands of all the seas, and that in turn other 
peoples through the League of Nations and its labor 
organization will interfere with industrial conditions 
within the United States of America and make trouble 
for this land. 

It is not easy to understand at once how specific 
and comprehensive is this movement to give the league 
practical or actual control of the labor question 
throughout the world. Some labor leaders suspect that 
it is a scheme to throttle the laborer, while others rec- 


WHAT THE LEAGUE REALLY IS 


123 


ognize in it an attempt to schackle the employer and 
the man who finances the industrial operations. Why 
may it not do both? 

The disposition manifested by persons in the 
Peace Conference to recognize the Russian bolshevists 
even officially, shows that somebody in the Peace Con¬ 
ference was swayed by pretty extreme socialistic ten¬ 
dencies, and other manifestations and even utterances 
corroborate the existence of socialistic forces in the 
making of the league and of the Treaty of Peace. That 
they were either crude or merely academic does not 
change the fact, but they are far from being merely 
academic. The facts show the intention is to make 
them very practical, and if so the league can disturb 
the entire civilized world. 

This linking with labor movements is plainly a 
socialistic scheme and seems has some relation to per¬ 
sons who have been casting friendly eyes on the bolshe- 
viki notwithstanding their robberies, their murders, 
and their corruptions, and high authority has declared 
that into the league has already been worked the soviet 
of bolshevism. 

It is known that even in the United States of 
America there are apologists for bolshevism, and it is 
significant that often, and, possibly in every instance, 
they favor the League of Nations and what it repre¬ 
sents. It is also to be noted that bolshevism is against 
the essential and practical things for which America 
stands. 

The American idea of government emphasizes the 
individual man, but the bolshevic idea emphasizes the 
class and sets class in antagonism against class, and, 
hence, makes class wars. 

The American idea recognizes the individual man 
regardless of rank or lack of rank, but bolshevism puts 
the government into the hands of a class and that the 
lowest class. 


124 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


The American idea gives the vote to the man, 
because he is a man, but the teachings of bolshevism 
give the vote to the job. 

The American idea gives the chance to individuals 
to express themselves individually by the ballot or 
free speech, but bolshevism gives it to a class and that 
the most unprepared class. So bolshevism if it had the 
power and the opportunity would be destructive to 
American ideals. 

That some in connection with the Peace Confer¬ 
ence had bolshevistic tendencies has been publicly pro¬ 
claimed. How much this has had to do with the league 
and its projects may appear as the months and years 
go on, if the League of Nations goes on. 

To put the United States into this league, with its 
labor scheme, is to put this country into the most all- 
embracing socialistic schemes the world has ever 
known. 

We are not discussing economic theories or at¬ 
tempting to decide which is right, but simply point to 
the socialistic possibilities and certain entanglements 
in the scope of the league’s labor projects. 

America has her hands full with her own affairs, 
and, particularly, of her own industrial affairs, and 
she cannot afford to undertake to regulate, or be en¬ 
tangled with, the labor affairs of all the nations. 

Further, acocrding to the American idea of gov¬ 
ernment, this kind of work is not the function of na¬ 
tional government at all. 

It is not the business of the government to work 
out economic theories, which are changing all the time, 
and to do it by the power of the government, but to 
protect the individual so that he will have a fair chance 
to work out his own economic salvation. 

In the United States the individual is defended 
and given liberty to act individually or in combination, 
and to test and find out for himself what is the best 


WHAT THE LEAGUE REALLY IS 125 


in practical and economic matters, as he is in other 
affairs, just as the government protects the citizen 
in his religious freedom, but does not legislate as to 
what shall be his religious convictions, and this Ameri¬ 
can idea of government should keep the United States 
of America out of a league which proposes to meddle 
with and regulate pretty much all the affairs of the 
nations and their peoples. 

This scheme of the league to control the industrial 
affairs of the world is so insidious that one might 
think it had an unearthly inspiration, and that if it 
was inspired, the inspiration was not from above. 

More than that, the league proposes to interfere 
with matters of commerce. That is quite manifest. 

President Wilson's third point calls for “the re¬ 
moval of economic barriers and the establishment of 
an equality of trade conditions," and The Labor Con¬ 
ference had previously pronounced “against all proj¬ 
ects for an economic war . . . whether by protective 
tariffs or capitalist trusts or monopolies," and in favor 
of “the open door, and no hostile discrimination against 
foreign countries." 

Then Article XXI in the first constitution said: 
“The high contracting parties agree that provision 
shall be made through the instrumentality of the league 
to secure and maintain freedom of transit and equitable 
treatment for the commerce of all states members of 
the league." 

That means that the league proposes to exercise 
control over commerce, and, as commerce starts in and 
goes from the nation, that means the direction of the 
nation and its business affairs. In the revised cove¬ 
nant this Article XXI, was combined in Article XXIII, 
but the idea remained. Still we read about “equitable 
treatment for commerce." 


126 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


That must mean very much in commercial mat¬ 
ters. No one an predict how much, but certainly very 
much. 

It must at once be seen that the league can be 
used to meddle with tariff questions and with the sub¬ 
ject of free trade, which may be offensive to both pro¬ 
tective and free trade peoples, all of which will tend 
to confusion and disturbance, and work injury to 
business. 

The league is to have mandatory power over cer¬ 
tain “colonies and territories” and to have power to 
designate “mandatory” states to control them, but 
the “mandatory state shall render to the league an 
annual report in reference to the territory committed 
to its charge.” 

This is part of the temporal power of this over¬ 
state called the league, and indicates the beginning of 
a new world empire, over which their highnesses of 
the council, or league, will rule. 

The league also proposes to take “under the con¬ 
trol of the league all international bureaus already 
established by general treaties, if the parties to such 
treaties consent,”* and the league proposes “that all 
such international bureaus to be constituted in the 
future shall be placed under control of the league.”? 

So the so-called league is even to control the treat¬ 
ies of nations, and to control future “international 
bureaus,” and all treaties are to be registered with 
the league, “and that no such treaty or international 
engagement shall be binding until so registered,”? and 
yet some people profess not to see what immense and 
sweeping over-world powers are to be invested in the 


♦Art. XXII of first covenant; Art. XXIV, revised covenant. 
tNew Art. XXIV, has: “All such international bureaus and all 
commissions for the regulation of matters of international interest 
hereafter constituted shall be placed under the direction of the 
league.” 

$Art. XXIII, first covenant; Art. XVIII, revised covenant. 



WHAT THE LEAGUE REALLY IS 


127 


proposed league, though the league powers are vastly 
grater than ever belonged to the nations severally, or 
in combination. 

Further, the first constitution said: 

“The Executive Council shall formulate plans for 
the establishment of a permanent court of interna¬ 
tional justice and this court shall, when established, 
be competent to hear and determine any matter which 
the parties recognized as suitable for submission to 
arbitration under the foregoing article.” (Art. XIV.) 

The revised covenant has some modifications. It 
reads: “The council shall formulate and submit to the 
members of the league for adoption plans for the es¬ 
tablishment of a permanent court of international 
justice. The court shall be competent to hear and de¬ 
termine any dispute of an international character 
which the parties thereto submit to it. The court may 
also give an advisory opinion upon and dispute or 
question referred to it by the council or by the assem- 
bly.” (Article XIV.) 

This seems to give the assembly something to do 
but provides for carrying many things back to the 
council. 

All this is to be thrown into the hands of the 
Executive Council, when it should be detailed in the 
constitution before any one is asked to adopt it or go 
into the league. 

But why this court when the Hague Court still 
exists, and only needs a few touches to increase its 
efficiency, and so have a League of Nations without 
any super-natural political governing power? 

With all these things the league has an immense 
power of determination as to what the nations shall 
and shall not do. 

This power of direction as to what shall be done 
is great already, but is susceptible of a much greater 
increase as time goes on. 


128 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


It can call upon, or command, the nations to fur¬ 
nish armed forces, and naturally, the league would 
have the general conduct of the war and perhaps the 
details also. Finally the decisions are with the league 
though just here the expressions are not definite. 

Surely it is a very supreme power that can call 
out or even call upon the military forces of the na¬ 
tions, and an unheard power that subordinates the na¬ 
tions in the most vital matters and destroys their 
sovereignty. 

These facts show that the so-called League of Na¬ 
tions is not to prevent war but to rule the world in 
many things, and, we may say, in everything, and that 
it is intended to be the supreme government and a 
permanent over-government. 

If the aim was simply to preserve the peace, why 
did not the league promoters limit themselves to that? 
Instead of doing so they seek to construct, under the 
title of League of Nations, a power over the nations 
that will affect both their external and internal affairs. 

History cannot match such a grasping after world 
power. It outdoes Caesar, Napoleon, and even the 
modern Kaiser, and all their kind rolled together. 

If it keeps on as it proposes at the start, it will 
be the most extensive imperialism the world has ever 
seen, and its yoke may prove to be the heaviest and 
the hardest humanity has ever borne, for love of power 
never weakens with age. 

All this involves also a power of inquiry that may 
in time amount to an inquisition into the affairs of the 
nations of a most annoying and oppressive nature, that 
will seriously interfere with their liberties, their peace, 
and their prosperity, and the day may come when 
there shall be provoked a rebellion and revolution of 
the nations against this tyranny and the uprising may 
be a bloody war, the league fighting for power, and the 


WHAT THE LEAGUE REALLY IS 129 


people of the nations fighting to break that power and 
recover the liberties of the lands they love. 

With all these things so evident the wise course 
is not to establish such a league and for the nation not 
to get into it. 

The League of Nations if it goes into effect is 
likely to prove the eternal meddler into the nation's 
affairs. The world’s new and magnified Paul Pry. 

Writing of the League of Nations, that excellent 
lawyer, Dwight, M. Lowrey, Esq., of Philadelphia, 
says : 

“It presents for our allegiance a new and over¬ 
shadowing government which, within ill-defined limits, 
shall exercise all the attributes of sovereignty over 
boundless regions by direct action on population whom 
no man can number, with the avowed purpose of reg¬ 
ulating from a common centre, in relations interna¬ 
tional and domestic, the affairs of mankind. . . 

“This new government has the power of taxation, 
the power to legislate, and to establish courts which 
may draw defendants before them, the power to reg¬ 
ulate commerce, the power to revise interstate re¬ 
lations, and the power to prescribe the size of armies 
and navies and make the decision of peace and war. 
These powers may be invigorated, extended or multi¬ 
plied by amendment on a three-fourths vote. . . . 

“In the new Congress of ‘Delegates’ any nation 
may have as many as three representatives for pur¬ 
poses of oratory and persuasion, but shall have only 
one vote. When that Congress assembles for the pur¬ 
pose of ‘dealing with matters within the sphere of ac¬ 
tion of the league,’ the Japanese who cannot be natural¬ 
ized here, will have an equal voice with us in deter¬ 
mining from whom we shall buy, and to whom we shall 
sell, and further how we shall adjust the conflicting 
interests of capital and labor. 


130 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


"If Switzerland shall sue for admission she will 
hardly be excluded, and her vote would then counter¬ 
balance ours in ascertaining the proper measure of the 
naval armament of the United States.”* 

"Its funds are gathered by a method in the nature 
of a requisition, but since the nation which does not 
pay may very possibly, upon the scope of the docu¬ 
ment, be deemed to have committed an act of war, the 
distinction does not appear to be great. . . . 

"The league can put a belt of famine and indus¬ 
trial disaster around that nation, member or non¬ 
member, which refuses to do its will, and around any 
bystanding nation, not a party to the league or con¬ 
troversy, which refuses to cooperate in the disciplinary 
measure. . . . 

"By Article XXIV, Tt shall be the right of the 
body of delegates from time to time to advise the re¬ 
consideration by states, members of the league, of 
treaties which have become inapplicable and of in¬ 
ternational conditions of which the continuance may 
endanger the peace of the world.’ This is a power to 
regulate our relations with foreign nations with a ven¬ 
geance. . . . Why talk of a right to advise, and point 
to a cloud of horrid war on the horizon, unless it is 
meant to impose a duty in every case to accept the 
advice? What then remains of the freedom of control 
of diplomatic arrangements. . . . ? 

"In addition to the powers already enumerated, the 
‘league’ clothes itself with divers functions of the 
highest governmental action and of immeasurable 
scope. 

"By Article XIX the ‘league’ assumes the admin¬ 
istration of the affairs of backward peoples through 
mandatory nations required to give annual account of 
their stewardship. . . . But General Smuts, from 
whose fertile brain this general scheme proceeded, has 


*The Legal Intelligencer, April 25, 1919. 




WHAT THE LEAGUE REALLY IS 


131 


seen to it that the Anglo-Boers and the Anzacs will 
have such guardianship over the conquered territories, 
within their respective spheres of influence, as will 
carry little to distinguish it from annexation. Then 
why not say so? Why not turn over at once those 
backward peoples to some or the other of the ‘advanced 
nations' upon definite pledges and be done with it... ? 
The question is not whether the United States can be 
required to accept an appointment as mandatory over 
Armenia, Mesopotamia, or other nearby regions, but 
whether it is consistent with their dignity and purpose 
to assume the role of professional trustee, having be¬ 
times for wards, remote tribes with whom we have 
little or no contact. ... It does not follow that the 
United States are called upon to act as their tutelary 
saint, either alone or in conelave."* 

When one surveys the scope, and scans the nature 
of the powers claimed by this proposed organization, 
it is astounding that any one can fail to see that it is 
not a mere league, but that it is an over-government 
with sovereignty over the nations. As Mr. Dwight M. 
Lowrey says: “It is trifling with language to call this 
document a proposal for a ‘league.' It is a plan of 
organic union in federal dress." “The builders are 
under no misapprehension as to the effect of their 
work, for though they have retained for the new asso¬ 
ciation the designation of ‘league,’ it is evident that 
they intend no mere pact, since the articles of union 
are frankly entitled ‘Constitution of the League of 
Nations.’ It is not a league, for that means only a 
concert of sovereign states to do a particular thing, in 
certain defined contingencies. In such undertakings 
the coercive principle is absent between the contracting 
parties, and the word connotes affirmative action 
only."* 


*Legal Intelligencer, April 25, 1919. 



132 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


Doctor David Jayne Hill, the distinguished diplo¬ 
mat and master of international law, in a lecture deliv¬ 
ered before the George Washington University, in the 
City of Washington, on the 28th of April, 1919, said: 

“No one can carefully examine this constitution of 
a League of Nations without discerning that it is the 
work of politicians and not the work of jurists. They 
have created an organ of power, but not an institution 
of justice. They have not distinctly recognized any 
rights or made any provision for determining them on 
judicial grounds.” 

He further said: 

“In the minds of those who are most active in 
commending this league there is apparently no very 
precise conception of its real nature. They speak 
alternately of a ‘treaty,’ a ‘covenant’ and of a ‘constitu¬ 
tion’ without making any distinction between them or 
seeming to realize that this is a matter of the least 
importance. To them it is an agreement to end war; 
and they appeal for support on this ground with little 
regard to the obligations involved or the ultimate con¬ 
sequences which may follow from accepting them.” 
And he pointed out that the aim in this professed so¬ 
ciety of states, was the creation of a predominant 
group within the more general association, and this 
would be the directive force. 

Then he thus follows: 

“The league, as a distinct corporate entity, exer¬ 
cising a will not identical with that of the separate 
members, is organized with power to coerce other 
states not belonging to it, to act under its own rules 
and by its own judgment, and even to dictate the form 
of government and degree of authority to be exercised 
over wide areas and great populations subjected to its 
control. 

“It is evident that if the powers possessed by the 
league are real and become operative and are not 


WHAT THE LEAGUE REALLY IS 133 


merely advisory or minatory, they derogate materially 
from the independence and sovereignty of the states 
composing the league. If, on the other hand, these 
powers are not real and operative, but merely advisory, 
then the league possesses only an apparent but alto¬ 
gether illusory authority. 

“It may be said—indeed, it is sometimes insisted 
upon—that an entente of free nations is precisely what 
the league is intended to be. It is impossible to give 
the constitution of the League of Nations this interpre¬ 
tation. The league professes to bind its members to 
united action, and it is in the next breath pretended 
that there is nothing binding about it! The choice 
must be made, and it is important that it should be 
clearly understood. Does the league invite, or does it 
command? If it only invites, it is not a league. If 
it commands, it is a super-government. 

“If it is not a super-government, if the Executive 
Council cannot bring an army into the field to enforce 
its decisions, the provisions of this constitution create 
enormous risks and positive dangers. 

“Although it is one of the alleged objects of this 
league to prevent war, war is not only distinctly pro¬ 
vided for, but the occasions when it must occur are 
plainly indicated and are even rendered necessary. 
Suppose one of these occasions to arise, which may 
easily happen through a misunderstanding or even a 
misrepresentation, when another procedure might 
avert it; having foreordained the war by prescription, 
having defined the circumstances in which it must 
occur, what becomes of the league if the recommenda¬ 
tion of the Executive Council is not promptly and 
effectively followed? 

“The truth is, if the conditions in which military 
action, or even economic action, will be unitedly under¬ 
taken are distinctly prescribed beforehand, when that 
action is called for it must be taken, or the whole plan 


134 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


is ridiculous. The same cannot be said of an entente, 
which lays down certain principles which it agrees to 
support and maintain. It does not say that, in such 
and such conditions, it will act thus and so. 

“It says, we stand for the arbitration of justiciable 
disputes, for international law as a standard of con¬ 
duct, for a court of justice, for conciliation and media¬ 
tion, and we shall both respect and support these pur¬ 
poses. If you make war and disregard the rights of 
humanity we are against you. We do not tell you now 
what we shall do; but we shall do what we think right, 
as we have in the great war. You may judge for your¬ 
self whether you want the United States on your side. 
We are with all of you, so long as you live according 
to law; but we shall stand for the law.” 

Advancing still further, Doctor Hill shows that the 
constitution or covenant of the league creates an im- 
perium, both by its attitude to the States outside the 
league and its system of mandatory government of 
weaker peoples. This he says, is imperialism, and 
adds: 

“Imperialism is imperialism, whether it be joint 
or single; and it is not a business that tends toward 
democracy or toward justice. Even in its purity and 
at its best estate it is more dangerous than ever when 
innocence and good intention become the partners of 
seasoned experience in a game for power.” 

Then, referring to the league’s attitude toward na¬ 
tions that wish to be neutral, and the declaration that 
“there will be no neutrals,” he remarks: 

“The policy of the league appears to be that neu¬ 
trality is to be abolished. That is the assumption 
underlying the President’s abandonment of the ‘free¬ 
dom of the seas,’ and his acceptance of Great Britain’s 
retention of her supremacy at sea, on the ground that 
when the league comes into being there are to be no 
neutrals. 


WHAT THE LEAGUE REALLY IS 135 


“But who can affirm that there are to be no neu¬ 
trals ? By what right can this league declare that there 
are no neutrals ? And if there are neutrals what is to 
become of the existing rights of neutrals under inter¬ 
national law? Is neutral territory no longer to be in¬ 
violable ? Are the armies of the league to march freely 
against its enemies across neutral territory without 
regard to the wishes of neutral States? Are there to 
be no neutral rights on the sea? What is to happen 
when the league declares an economic boycott against 
an offending State? Are all States, even the neutral¬ 
ized, like Switzerland, which desires to retain that 
status, to be compelled to observe it? 

“According to international law as it exists and is 
now understood, the rights of neutrals on the sea are 
definitely recognized. Has any single group of nations, 
or a league created by them, acting in a corporate 
entity, the right either morally or in a jural sense to 
violate or arbitrarily to abrogate the laws protecting 
them? . . . 

“If this group, or this artificial entity, has the 
physical strength to do so, it can undoubtedly violate 
these rights and disregard existing laws; but it would 
be possible to do so only by force majeure—by the ex¬ 
ercise of arbitrary power in defiance of law. 

“This is imperialism. It may be well meaning— 
imperialism always pretends to be benevolent—but if 
the war in which we have participated was a war to 
destroy imperialism, and to establish the self-deter¬ 
mination of free nations under law, which should be 
the expression of their consent, a plan which merely 
establishes a composite imperialism, the arbitrary 
power of a single group of nations, would be not a 
victory for freedom, but its defeat.” 

Gradually the League of Nations opens up new 
and unsuspected vistas which are quite bewildering, 
so that in the mental confusion one may wonder what 


136 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


other meanings and purposes are hidden beneath what 
seems the scanty outline of the covenant. 

Thus William Allen White, who has been close to 
the League of Nations in the making in Paris, tells us 
that “The League of Nations at heart will consist of a 
series of international soviets," and the very word 
soviet suggests some degree of bolshevism. Indeed Mr. 
White goes on to say that it is “the soviet principle 
in government as distinguished from, the democratic 
principle," and that “the whole League of Nations is 
a vast international group of soviets." Entering more 
into detail he observes that “in the League of Nations 
a number of councils, conferences and committees are 
organized, not to represent States, not even to repre¬ 
sent peoples, but on the soviet principle, to represent 
jobs," and he cites the “commission on International 
Labor Legislation and an “International Labor 
Bureau" as illustrative. 

So, according to this well-known writer, the 
League of Nations is a series of soviets, not of a demo¬ 
cratic nature, and not representing nations or even 
peoples, but representing the soviet principle, which is 
suggestive of bolshevism. 

Plainly disclaiming democracy for the league, Mr. 
White explains that “Democracy gives one citizen one 
vote. The soviet gives one job one vote." So the 
league is not the exponent of democracy but discounts 
the man, and magnifies the material job. That being 
so then the league is veering from the democratic idea 
of “government of the people, by the people, and for 
the people," which is the American idea, toward class 
government and that government by the proletariat, 
and so tends to sweep the world toward extreme social¬ 
ism, which would destroy American institutions and 
true democracy. With such tendencies in the league 
or its practice, true Americanism cannot support the 
so-called League of Nations, for anything that is 


WHAT THE LEAGUE REALLY IS 137 

against the democratic idea is against this democratic 
nation. 

Probably this point need not be discussed further, 
but what has been said is sufficient to indicate the in¬ 
tricate perplexities of this contrivance called the 
League of Nations, at one time obscure and again start¬ 
ling in the boldness of its claims, plausible in its prom¬ 
ises and alarming in its serious possibilities. At one 
time it seems to mean one thing and again to mean 
another, and then it is to mean whatever meaning the 
league pleases to give to it at any time, and the league 
can change the meaning at will according to its mood 
or immediate purpose. At best it is hard to under¬ 
stand and full of dire possibilities. Its intricacies 
suggest the spider’s web, the innocent fly attracted to 
the web, and, entangled, struggling to its fate. So the 
nation that enters this league entangles itself more 
and more, while the spider sucks away the vitality of 
the victim. “Will you walk into my parlor? said the 
spider to the fly.” 

They are innocent indeed who supposed that this 
league was simply to preserve the peace. 

It makes a good or bad beginning at governing 
the whole world in matters both small and great, and 
already shows extraordinary power of expansion. 

The League of Nations is not what many have 
supposed it to be, but it is an over government that 
is constructed to rule all the nations in it and, as far 
as possible, the whole world. 

It is perfectly plain that the United States of 
America cannot put itself under this super-world-gov¬ 
ernment without losing its sovereignty, which it would 
do the moment it took the league obligations. 


X 


THE MECHANISM AND THE WORKING 

First, in the composition of the so-called League 
of Nations are the individuals from the various nations 
who are supposed to have membership in the league. 

There are forty-five named nations who are 
wanted in the league by its promoters. In the “Annex 
to the Covenant,” and printed with it are what are 
called the “Original members of the League of Na¬ 
tions,“Signatories of the Treaty of Peace.” The 
names of the members are given as follows: 

“United States of America, Belgium, Bolivia, 
Brazil, British Empire, Canada, Australia, South 
Africa, New Zealand, India, China, Cuba, Czechoslo¬ 
vakia, Ecuador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, 
Hedjas, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Nicaragua, 
Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Serbia, 
Siam, Uruguay,” making thirty-two states or nations. 

In going over this statement as to the members 
who are mentioned as “Signatories of the Treaty of 
Peace,” that when this was passed and published the 
Treaty of Peace had not been signed by Germany or 
any other Nation for whom the Treaty had been made. 

Then it is to be noted that the United States of 
America, which heads the list, had not accepted the 
league covenant or agreed to enter its membership, and 
it heads the list alphabetically, as America begins with 
the first letter of the alphabet. 

Further, Great Britain counts as six Nations, 
Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and 
India, standing out as five separate States or Nations. 

As new nations there appear Czechoslovakia, 
Hedjas, and Poland, while a large part of Serbia (Jugo¬ 
slavs) is new. 

From Asia, there is Japan, China, India, Siam, 
and Hedjas, none of which are Christian. 


THE MECHANISM AND THE WORKING 133 


From South America there are Bolivia, Brazil, 
Ecuador, Panama, Peru and Uruguay, with which may 
be classed Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, and Nic¬ 
aragua. 

From Africa, are Liberia and South Africa. 

Then there are the following States which are not 
in the league but which are “invited to accede to the 
covenant”: 

“Argentine Republic, Chile, Columbia, Denmark, 
Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Persia, Salvador, 
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Venezuela,” making thir¬ 
teen nations, which with the previous thirty-two make 
forty-five. 

Here, in the first place, it will be noted that some 
nations are not counted in or invited into the league. 
Thus Germany, Russia, and Mexico are not mentioned. 

The Scandinavian Nations, Norway, Sweden and 
Denmark, have not shown any inclination to enter the 
league. Neither has Holland, while Switzerland has 
not intimated her desire, and all these nations have 
strong trade relations with Germany. It would seem 
probable as they kept out of the late war they may keep 
out of the league of which Germany and Austria are 
not members. Some or all of them may be a political 
nucleus in the future. 

The member-state may have not more than three 
representatives. The gathering of the representatives 
is to be called The Assembly, and in it no nation can 
have more than one vote, though two or three repre¬ 
sentatives may be present. (Article III.) 

Then there is a Council which is much smaller 
than the league Assembly, and which is supposed to 
exert many and great powers. Originally it was called 
the executive council, but in the revised covenant the 
qualifying word executive was stricken out, so that 
now it is simply the council, and this was done doubt¬ 
less because it was intended to be much more than an 


140 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


executive body, and, so, Article IV states: “The Coun¬ 
cil may deal at its meetings with any matter within the 
sphere of action of the league or affecting the peace 
of the world.” 

With it one might think there was no need of the 
league assembly, and, probably the council will think 
so if the league ever gets into operation, and the council 
will determine what is within its sphere and may em¬ 
brace anything and everything. No such body ever 
ruled the world before. 

The composition of the council is rather peculiar. 
It is to contain only nine member-states, five of which 
are fixed, and four of which are fluctuating. The five 
permanent members are the “representatives of the 
United States of America, of the British Empire, of 
France, of Italy, and of Japan”; while the changeable 
four members “shall be selected by the assembly from 
time to time in its discretion.” The four named for the 
present are Belgium, Brazil, Greece, and Spain. 

(Article IV.) 

It is perfectly plain that in the council the inten¬ 
tion is to keep the power in the hands of the five per¬ 
manent members, the British Empire, France, Italy, 
Japan and the United States, and they are to rule the 
world. Each state can have only one representative 
and only one vote in the council, but that does not 
measure the influence which may be exerted by some 
particular one of the ruling five. 

The proposed league is called the League of Na¬ 
tions, but it is remarkable that the word Nation seems 
to disappear, and the word State to take its place, 
v^hich seems to suggest that the intention is to blot out 
the nation and carry the people and the territory as 
merely a state in this new international organism. It 
is the death of nationalism, and there will be no place 
Tor patriotic Americanism, and the American is to be 
swallowed up in the international citizenship of the 


THE MECHANISM AND THE WORKING 141 


league which is to destroy his Nation. No clearer evi¬ 
dence is necessary to show that the league is intended 
to be a super-world-government over subordinate na¬ 
tions. So the word government is used but not nation, 
and the nations sink to mere governments under the 
league which develops into the imperialism of the 5 
whole world. It is very significant. 

In reaching decisions in the assembly the char¬ 
acter of the vote varies. Sometimes a unanimous vote 
is required, sometimes a two-thirds vote, and some¬ 
times a mere majority. 

For specially important decisions there must be a 
unanimous vote. Thus Article V says: “Except where 
otherwise expressly provided in this covenant, or by 
the terms of this treaty, decisions at any meeting of 
the assembly or the council shall require the agreement 
of all the members of the league represented at the 
meeting.” 

“All matters of procedure at meetings” and “the 
appointment of committees to investigate particular 
matters,” “may be decided by a majority of the mem¬ 
bers of the league represented at the meeting.” 
Article V. 

Amandments to the covenant “take effect when 
ratified by the members of the league whose representa¬ 
tives compose the council and by a majority of the 
league whose representatives compose the assembly. 
(Article XXVI.) 

This is not perfectly clear but it seems to mean 
that while “a majority of the league” is sufficient, it 
requires a unanimous vote of the council. If so, one 
member of the council could defeat the proposed 
amendment. 

When an amendment is made, the article provides 
that “No such amendment shall bind any member of 
the league which signifies its dissent therefrom, but 
in that case it shall cease to be a member of the league.” 



142 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


Article XVI states that “Any member of the league 
which has violated any covenant of the league may be 
declared to be no longer a member of the league by a 
vote of the council concurred in by the representatives 
of all the other members of the league represented 
therein.” 

In case of an unsettled dispute “the council either 
unanimously or by a majority vote, shall make and pub¬ 
lish a report.” (Article XV.) 

“Any fully self-governing State, dominion, or col¬ 
ony not named in the annex, may become a member of 
the league if its admission is agreed to by two-thirds 
of the assembly, provided that it shall give guarantees 
of its sincere intention to observe its international ob¬ 
ligations, and shall accept such regulations as may be 
prescribed by the league in regard to its miltary and 
naval forces and armaments.” (Article I.) 

“With the approval of the majority of the assem¬ 
bly, the council may name additional members of the 
league,” etc., and “the council with like approval may 
increase the number of members of the league to be 
selected by the assembly for represntation to the 
council.” (Article IV.) 

The league is to have its headquarters, or speaking 
more properly, its capital which “is established at 
Geneva,” Switzerland, but the council may at any 
time decide that the seat of the league shall be estab¬ 
lished elsewhere. (Article VII.) At the capital there 
is to be a capitol, or as a European would say, a palace, 
and “The buildings and other property occupied by the 
league or its officials, or by representatives attending 
its meetings, shall be inviolable,” (Article VII), which 
plainly reveals the international sovereignty of this 
super-state, which all the nations are expected to duly 
respect in its superiority. 

The league is to have a “First Secretary General” 
and other secretaries and a “staff of the secretariat,” 


THE MECHANISM AND THE WORKING 143 


the size of which is not limited (Article VI) and “All 
positions under or in connection with the league, in¬ 
cluding the secretariat, shall be open equally to men 
and women,” (Article VIII.) The one named to be 
“First Secretary General of the League of Nations” 
is Sir James Eric Drummond, of Great Britain (Annex 
to the covenant). Finally, “the expense of the secre¬ 
tariat shall be borne by the members of the league.” 
We say finally, but the promoters of the league want the 
expenses to go on forever, and, if they do they will 
increase in volume. 

Then, there are to be commissions and depart¬ 
ments of various kinds. Thus there is to be “A per¬ 
manent commission” “to advise the council ... on 
military and naval questions generally,” Article IX. 
International organizations are to be established on 
labor questions, and evidently on matters of transit 
and commerce, and on “matters of international con¬ 
cern for the prevention and control of disease,” (Ar¬ 
ticle XXIII.) The league proposes to take control of 
“international bureaus already established” and will 
have under its direction all international bureaus 
“hereafter constituted,” and all the expenses of these 
bureaus and commissions may be included “as part of 
the expenses of the secretariat,” (Artcle XXIV.) 

Any one who imagines that the league is simply 
to prevent war, has not read the covenant, or has failed 
to understand it. The league means to be a super- 
government, above the nations, to do what nations 
should do for themselves, and directly or indirectly to 
rule the world, and to diminish, and ultimately destroy, 
the ruling power of the nations, which means a loss 
of national independence and the absorption of lost 
national power by the League of Nations. 

The league proposes to take control of the arm¬ 
aments of the Nations. Thus the “State” wishing to 
become a member of the league must “accept such regu- 


144 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


lations as may be prescribed by the league in regard 
to its military and naval forces and armaments,” (Ar¬ 
ticle I.) This means the league proposes to control the 
nations means of defense and offence, which means 
that the nation submits itself to the tender mercies of 
the little oligarchy that controls the council and the 
league. 

According to Article VIII, the council is to “for¬ 
mulate plans for such reduction for the consideration 
and action of the several governments,” evidently with 
the purpose of securing agreement, and, “After these 
plans shall have been adopted by the several govern¬ 
ments, limits of armaments therein fixed shall not be 
exceeded without the concurrence of the council”; so 
that from that time forward the council of the league 
is to have absolute control of the “governments,” and 
the nation cannot do what it deems necessary for its 
own defence, no matter what nations outside the league 
may be planning and doing, and so the nation is help¬ 
less unless, after delay, the superior council pleases to 
give permission. 

According to the same article “the members of the 
League agree that the manufacture by private enter¬ 
prise of munitions and implements of war is open to 
grave objections,” and by Article XXIII, the members 
of the league “will entrust the league with the general 
supervision of the trade in arms and ammunition with 
the countries in which the control of the traffic is neces¬ 
sary in the common interest.” All of which means that 
the league intends, if it can, to take over from in¬ 
dividuals and nations a legitimate line of business 
which in many respects has its place in the pursuits of 
peace as well as in war, and which may leave the na¬ 
tion and its citizens helpless or at the mercy of the 
league or its little council. Controlling armaments 
simply puts power in the league, builds up the super¬ 
government, and diminishes the power of the nations. 


THE MECHANISM AND THE WORKING 145 


At the same time the nations in the league are 
expected to hold themselves ready to furnish military 
or nava^l forces for the league wars to maintain itself 
and to punish recalcitrant “States.” Thus in Article 
XVI is the statement that: “It shall be the duty of 
the council in such case to recommend to the several 
governments concerned what effective military or 
naval forces the members of the league shall severally 
contribute to the armaments of forces to be used to 
protect the covenants of the league.” That is to make 
war. 

Again it will be observed that the word used is not 
“Nations” but “Governments.” Denationalization has 
made such progress in the minds of the promoters of 
the league that what were nations are now to be merely 
governments, and before there is any league in effect 
we see the Supreme Government “The League of Na¬ 
tions,” so-called, and under it the nations have faded 
out, leaving simply governments that minister to and 
support “The League” which is to control the govern¬ 
ments and the world occasionally by its Assembly but 
generally and everlastingly through its little oligarchic 
Council, and with its forces made up from the armies 
and navies of the “governments,” this league is to 
wage the wars and direct the forces, while the “govern¬ 
ments” sacrifice precious lives and pour out their treas¬ 
ures (Article XVI), and the league for peace has 
become the great fighting machine of the world, carry¬ 
ing misery, death, and destruction in its devastating 
progress, possibly on and in the United States of 
America, and all, perhaps, through a despotic council 
swayed by five, or four, or three, or two men, or pos¬ 
sibly by one over-mastering mind. 

In the matter of disputes arising between the 
member-states in the league, “likely to lead to a rup¬ 
ture,” the parties agree that “they will submit the 
matter either to arbitration or to inquiry by the coun- 


146 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


cil,” (Article XII), and when “they recognize (the dis¬ 
pute) to be suitable for submission to arbitration and 
which cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, 
they will submit the whole subject matter to arbitra¬ 
tion,” (Article XIII,) and that they will carry out the 
award, but “In the event of any failure to carry out 
such an award, the Council shall propose what steps 
should be taken to give effect thereto,” (Article XIII.) 

In Article XV it states that “if there shall arise 
between members of the league any dispute likely to 
lead to a rupture, which is not submitted to arbitra¬ 
tion as above, the members of the league agree that 
they will “submit the matter to the council,” though 
the council is not a judicial, but a political body, and 
will be likely, therefore, to decide according to the 
political rather than the judicial bearings of the case, 
not acting simply according to the principles of inter¬ 
national law but rather according to political policy, 
swayed perhaps by compromise rather than principle. 

“If the council fails to reach a report which is 
unanimously agreed to by the members thereof, other 
than the representatives of one or more of the parties 
to the dispute,” then “the members of the league” can 
act, (Article XV). That seems to mean that the una¬ 
nimity of the council in such a case, does not count in 
the parties to the dispute, but the council with the 
parties counted out, so that the unanimity cannot be 
broken by the vote of one or the other party, the party 
not having that weapon of defence. 

Then “at the request of either party to the dis¬ 
pute,” “The council may in any case under this Article 
XV refer the dispute to the Assembly,” and, here again 
the action is to be “exclusive in each case of the repre¬ 
sentatives of the parties to the dispute.” (Last para¬ 
graph of Article XV.) These provisions bring all these 
matters both in the council and the assembly under the 


THE MECHANISM AND THE WORKING 147 


unanimous vote, exclusive of '‘the representatives of 
the parties to the dispute/’ 

The great question for Americans is as to how 
these regulations would affect the United States of 
America if it went into the league. 

First, with the United States in the league, not¬ 
withstanding its size and strength, it would have no 
preponderating vote. It would have only one vote in 
the Council and only one vote in the Assembly, and in 
voting power Spain in the council would be as strong 
as the United States, between whom there was war not 
long ago, and in the assembly Siam or Liberia would 
have the same voting strength as the United States. 

That being the case it would seem that the United 
States would count as much outside the league as she 
could within that combination. 

Again, one vote can block the United States in the 
council, and one vote could block the United States in 
the assembly, the general meeting of the league. Sup¬ 
pose in the council the United States wanted something 
done, the negative vote of Japan, or Brazil, or of 
offended Italy could defeat the United States. Or, if in 
the assembly the United States presented a proposition 
the vote of Haiti, of Guatemala, or offended China, 
could defeat the great United States. It might at any 
time be a very easy thing to find a jealous nation or 
one with a real or fancied wrong, that could with a 
single vote defeat the United States on some particular 
proposition, or all the time neutralize the United States 
in the League of Nations. For the United States to go 
into such an arrangement is simply to submit herself 
to snubbing and insult—to be in with her man power 
and money power for the use of the council or the 
league, when in the council and in the assembly a single 
adverse vote can block her and humiliate her before 
the world. The very thought of the possibility of such 
a thing should make an American’s blood boil. 


148 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


It seems perfectly plain that an independent Amer¬ 
ica outside this league could count more in the world, 
and’even on the league, than could America with lost 
independence inside the league. For illustration, it is 
not difficult to imagine situations that might arise in 
which the United States might, and may, be involved. 

There stands out very conspicuously the immigra¬ 
tion question. At the Peace Conference Japan strongly 
urged the recognition of racial equality. She did not 
get just what she wanted in this particular and, for the 
time being, consoled herself with the large slice of 
China, containng a great Chinese population, which she 
was granted by the two or three persons who were 
parcelling out the world, notwithstanding the principle 
of “self determination” of peoples which had been 
paraded as inviolable. 

Japan yielded for the moment but it was well 
understood that this was only temporary, and every¬ 
body knew that Japan would continue to press for an 
international decision through the league and by other 
means. What was rankling in the mind of Japan was 
her failure to obtain for her nationals in the United 
States, and particularly on the Pacific Coast, what she 
regarded as equal rights, and the matter was compli¬ 
cated, or, made more clear, by the attitude of the state 
governments in that part of the United States. 

The question has been an issue for some years, and, 
now if the League of Nations is actually formed and 
put into operation, a new method will have been devised 
for considering the matter. If the United States enters 
the league there seems no doubt the question will be 
presented to and pressed upon the league, and it may 
be raised by Japan or by some other state. 

Prior to that diplomatic methods may be used. 
Japan may raise the question with the United States 
and the United States may continue her recent attitude 
on the subject, and it would become a dispute between 


THE MECHANISM AND THE WORKING 149 


the two nations. Before the league was formed about 
the only form of consideration was through diplomatic 
channels, but, with the league in operation, Japan has 
a new recourse and may turn to the league. 

Japan may again make her demands but the United 
States may refuse to yield. Japan, then may say it will 
appeal to the league, to which the United States may 
reply that this is an internal matter and is not within 
the province of the league, whereupon Japan may claim 
that it is a question between two nations, and, there¬ 
fore, is international, and may cut the discussion short 
by saying the league exists and we will take an appeal, 
and as you are in the league and have assumed the 
obligations, you must make answer. 

So the matter is brought before the league. The 
United States objects, but Japan has friends in the 
league and the objection is overruled. 

The council hears the case, but with the United 
States and Japan not voting, the council does not agree, 
and the case is taken to the Assembly. In the Assembly 
there are a large number of Nations who for their own 
people want the same thing that Japan demands for 
her citizens regardless of complexion or race, and the 
decision, let us suppose, is against the United States, 
whose claims could not get a unanimous vote. 

What, then, can the United States do? There is 
no higher court. The super-world government has 
rendered its decision. Well, as a last resort the United 
States can fight. No, she must not fight a sister league- 
state. She cannot fight with hope of success, for the 
league has reduced her armament below the point of 
efficiency, and she is under the league obligation not 
to fight for three months. 

That gives Japan three months to increase her 
military and naval efficiency to which she had been 
secretly adding, and, suddenly, there appears on the 
Pacific Coast of the United States a great fleet of 


150 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


Japanese transports carrying tens of thousands of 
Japanese immigrants, for Japan has determined to test 
the decision the league has given in her favor, and to 
land these thousands of immigrants on the coast of the 
United States, and to ensure this, the transports are 
convoyed by an immense number of battleships, 
cruisers, submarines and airplanes of all sorts and 
sizes. 

The United States is not prepared for this attack. 
Her Eastern Coast having been menaced she had sent 
most of her naval forces to the Atlantic, but, with the 
little force at hand she undertakes to defend her West¬ 
ern Coast and war is on. 

Instantly, under the terms of Article XVI, which 
declares the state “shall ipso facto be deemed to have 
committed an act of war against all other members 
of the league,” and all the forces of the league, includ¬ 
ing armies and navies of the countries in the league, 
make war upon the United States, the nations in the 
league refuse to have any intercourse with the United 
States, her ports are blockaded, and hostile armies pene¬ 
trate her territory from many directions and rival 
nations gloat over the expected downfall and ruin of 
the once great and independent United States of 
America. 

Or, suppose a foreign nation undertook to estab¬ 
lish itself on the Western Hemisphere. This would be 
against the American declaration called the Monroe 
Doctrine, a doctrine which has persisted and asserted 
itself from its first promulgation. 

The “Holy Alliance” understood it and did not 
interfere, as had been intended, with the young 
Spanish-American Republics. France, or rather Louis 
Napoleon, understood it when, after the close of the 
Civil War, it was intimated to him that the French 
army must be withdrawn from Mexico. Great Britain 
understood it when President Cleveland invoked it dur- 


THE MECHANISM AND THE WORKING 151 


ing the Venezuelan boundary dispute; and Germany 
understood it when her war vessels were threatening 
Venezuela, and President Roosevelt ordered the Kaiser 
to recall his war vessels or he would immediately order 
Admiral Dewey with the American fleet into Vene¬ 
zuelan waters. The doctrine never died and it has 
never lost its force and when it was not mentioned in 
the first constitution of the League of Nations, a cry 
went out from America that secured the insertion in 
the revised covenant of at least the words—“Monroe 
Doctrine.” But some say the league when it begins 
to function can give to the Monroe Doctrine any inter¬ 
pretation it pleases. 

Then, again, for the sake of illustration, suppose 
Japan would undertake to establish herself on the 
Pacific Coast of the United States of Mexico, at which 
rumor has said she was aiming from time to time. We 
do not assert that she ever did so, but for the sake of 
illustration, suppose, under the league she really did 
so, what then? 

The great and independent United States, outside 
the league, would at once know what to do, and would 
promptly attend to the matter, but, in the league, the 
situation would be different for the United States would 
have bound herself with league obligations, and it 
would no longer be the independent United States, free 
to think her own thoughts and to carry out her own 
noble purposes. 

The United States, of course, would protest, and 
Japan would try to defend her action. The United 
States might order Japan out and off the Western 
Hemisphere. The United States might go so far as to 
intimidate, or threaten to eject her by force, but Japan 
could say: you cannot do that now. We are both 
sister states in the League of Nations, and you are 
under restraining obligations, and, if you insist on my 
vacating, I will insist on having the whole question 


152 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


submitted to the league. You may take it or I will 
take it. 

In brief, this territorial question on the Western 
Hemisphere is taken to the league, and the United 
States by going into the league would be bound to 
submit. 

The United States could say this act of Japan is a 
violation of my doctrine of Monroe which has been in 
effect since he first uttered it, and to this Japan might 
reply: The world has changed and the United States 
agreed to the change. The supreme government, even 
on the Western Hemisphere is not even the United 
States of America, but the “League of Nations" which 
is over all the “governments" in the world, and is to 
interpret old treaties, and to give them their new and 
proper place in the new order of things, and to this new 
order the United States as a leader in the world has 
deliberately agreed, and, further the government of 
Mexico has freely consented to our occupancy of a por¬ 
tion of the land on her Pacific Coast. 

The once great and independent United States, but 
now bound by the entanglements of the league, protests, 
that this is her affair alone, but, nevertheless, the case 
goes to the league and is heard by both Council and 
Assembly. The necessity for a unanimous vote and the 
force of a single adverse vote hampers the United 
States, for the case is submitted in such a way that the 
one vote against is all powerful. The league gives a 
new interpretation to the Monroe Doctrine in view of 
change in the government of the world, and the decision 
is against the United States—the humiliated United 
States. 

What can this once proud nation do? Japan is in 
possession. What can the United States do? In the 
league she is fettered by the obligations with which she 
has bound herself. If she undertakes to oust Japan 
from the Western Hemisphere, the league will fight her, 


THE MECHANISM AND THE WORKING 153 


and the nations that did not go into the league can 
say to the United States: “It served you right for 
going into the league.” 

Of course, it is to be understood that these are not 
actual but suppositional cases, and we do not mean to 
say that Japan is going to do either of these things, but 
some nations might. 

Let us take another illustration of the more or less 
possible or probable. At great expense the United 
States constructed the Panama Canal. That it is, or 
may be, in danger of attack is shown by the watchful 
guards and also by the strong fortifications finished or 
planned. That means that some other body wants it, 
or wants to destroy it, and knowing ones have said 
that the United States will yet have to fight to keep the 
Panama Canal. 

If the league goes into effect there is likely to be a 
new form of danger. There is an assertive demand that 
all great waterways, natural and artificial, shall be 
taken from the possession and control of any and every 
nation. Through the war the Kiel Canal, the Bos¬ 
phorus, and other waterways will be internationalized. 
The same class of demands will try to work through 
the League of Nations if it ever gets into free 
operation. 

Some nations, or combination of nations, will, in 
all probability, sooner or later, use the league to take 
from the United States the Panama Canal and inter¬ 
nationalize this Canal, just as they are trying to de¬ 
nationalize and internationalize the nations and their 
peoples. When that time comes there is likely to be 
some protest from the United States, but, if the United 
States is in the league, it will have to go through such 
experiences as we have narrated, with similar interpre¬ 
tations and rulings, with the fatal one vote, it may be, 
in opposition, and the final decree that the Panama 
Canal be taken from the United States and made the 


154 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


property of the world under the administration of the 
League of Nations. 

Circumstances do not permit our describing the 
probable incidents in detail but the end of the story 
should be that the United States arose in her indigna¬ 
tion and might and fought the league and its armies 
and broke it into smithereens so small that no Peace 
Conference ever was able to put them together again. 

Then when the league undertakes to carry out its 
labor-commerce and transit notions the world is likely 
to have times and half times. For example, suppose 
the league becomes free trade and endeavors to turn a 
protective tariff nation into free trade, or suppose the 
league favors protection and tries to force it on a people 
who prefer free trade, what a lively time there is 
likely to be! 

Then there is more than a suspicion that the league 
is founded on a socialistic basis, and, if so, what will 
happen when it begins to incorporate extreme social¬ 
ism, or perchance, Bolshevism, say in a free and demo¬ 
cratic country like the United States of America? And 
what will happen if the league undertakes in any way 
to bring the American wage earners down to the level 
and pay of the poor and underpaid peoples of the earth! 
That is the logic of equalization ideas, and these ques¬ 
tions are more than mere queries. 

A curious investigator says: “Of the forty-five 
nations in the League of Nations, twenty-four will be 
Roman Catholic, three heathen, and eighteen Protes¬ 
tant.” He seems to have overlooked at least one 
Mohammedan. 

Senator James A. Reed, of Missouri, has presented 
an analysis of the proposed League of Nations from 
another point of view, namely the racial, in his speech 
before the United States Senate, on the Twenty-sixth 
day of May, 1919. He said: 


THE MECHANISM AND THE WORKING 155 


“We are now for the first time informed what 
nations are to constitute the members of the league. 
It will be remembered that the original covenant, so far 
as published, mentioned by name as members of the 
league the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan and 
the United States, and that the names of the other 
members were referred to as being contained in a 
protocol, the contents of which were sedulously con¬ 
cealed from the American people, and, I presume, from 
the people of the world. Whatever motive led to this 
concealment, it is certain that the primal shock to 
American intelligence and patriotism would have been 
much greater had the people been at first frankly in¬ 
formed who were to be the partners of the United 
States in the world government about to be set up. 

“The names are now given. We know who are to 
sit on the council board of the international tribunal, 
which is to undertake in many respects the government 
of the world. An examination of the character of this 
membership ought in itself to cause the instant rejec¬ 
tion of the whole scheme. If brands the plan as futile 
and impossible, and dooms it to an ignominious failure.” 

Then he goes on to say: 

“An examination of the membership of this pres¬ 
ent league will first astonish and then arouse the indig¬ 
nation of every thoughtful man. It will come as a dis¬ 
tinct shock, first, that this is a colored League of 
Nations. That is to say, the majority of the nations 
composing the league do not belong to the white race. 
On the contrary, they are a conglomerate of the black, 
yellow, brown and red races, frequently so intermixed 
and commingled as to constitute an unclassifiable 
mongrel breed.” 

Stating that “The league is composed of thirty-two 
nations,” he remarked that “it appears that when the 
members of the league of nations meet about the coun¬ 
cil table, there will be fifteen men representing white 


156 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


nations and seventeen men representing black, brown, 
yellow and red races; and that among the nations clas¬ 
sified as dark the average of the dark-skinned people 
compared with the total population is nearly nine to 
one. It also is shown that among these races the 
degree of illiteracy is astonishingly high. Where 
figures are available the percentage runs from nearly 
50 per cent in Cuba to 98 per cent in Liberia. The 
average is about 85 per cent. Thus we not only bring 
to the council board races which are dark skinned, but 
also those so low in civilization that they constitute the 
very dregs of ignorance, superstition, and barbarism." 

He further gave figures to show that the “white 
countries" counted in the league had a population of 
only 289,428,000 as against the population of the “dark 
countries" of 811,425,500, and remarked that “to the 
votes of a tribunal thus constituted it is proposed to 
submit for final decision questions which may involve 
the very life of the United States. By their votes we 
may be plunged into war, by their decision subjected to 
wrongs of the most grievous character; by their decree 
the very fate of the world may be determined." 

Appealing to the Senators from the States on the 
Pacific ocean he asked: “How can the representatives 
of the Pacific states, who have contended and who still 
contend that neither Japanese nor Chinese shall land 
upon our shores, and that both are totally unfit for 
citizenship, justify their conduct if they shall now vote 
that in the council of the world Japan and China shall 
each cast a vote equal to the vote of the United States?" 

The report also reports Senator Reed as asking: 

“How can it be claimed that the South African 
colonies which England conquered upon a pretext that 
they were unfit for self-government should now, with a 
population of only 1,000,000 white people, be allowed 
to cast a vote equal to that of the United States. 


THE MECHANISM AND THE WORKING 157 


“How can Great Britain ask us to permit the 
ignorant and superstitious horde of India, incapable of 
self-government, or self-defence, cast a vote equal to 
that of the United States? 

“Going from these black races to the white, what 
logic will justify giving to the British empire six votes, 
as against a single vote of the United States, for the 
league, as now written, gives to Great Britain one vote, 
to her dependencies, India, South Africa, New Zealand, 
Canada and Australia, one vote each,” and in closing, 
he said: “I wll not consent to grant any governing 
power over this country to any race of men on earth 
save the citizens of our own Republic.” The League 
of Nations is not so simple and easily worked as some 
have supposed. 


XI 


THE LEAGUE AND THE UNITED STATES 

The most important nation in the world for the 
people of the United States is the United States of 
America. 

America first, is the motto of a true American, 
and America first among the nations should be his aim. 
First the United States is most important to the citizen 
and his family; and, second, whatever makes the 
United States the foremost and best among the nations 
tends to make her the leader of the nations and the 
benefactor of the world. So that which makes for the 
best interests of the United States ultimately makes 
for the best interests of humanity. 

Hence, when it is proposed to merge the United 
States of America into a blend of other nations, as is 
the case in this so-called League of Nations, the true 
American should ask what effect will this have upon 
the United States, and this he can ask in a very unsel¬ 
fish but self-preservative sense. 

Few have fully considered what it would mean to 
the United States of America to be in the proposed 
League of Nations, and more attention should be given 
this phase of the question. 

Most careful consideration should be given 
promptly to this serious question, and no proper 
answer can be given which is based merely on popular 
and imaginary suppositions, or indefinite inferences, 
or merely on what some people say. Such deductions 
are illogical and, in the main, are absolutely worthless. 

It is also to be remembered that many things said 
about the league are not the result of rigid examina¬ 
tion, but are the results of prejudgments, of superficial 
glances, or of a wish which is father to the thought. 

One who desires to ascertain what it would mean 
for the United States to be bound up in the league and 


LEAGUE AND UNITED STATES 


159 


bound by it, must not base his study on wild declara¬ 
tions, or emotional wishes, but on solid facts. Some 
of these facts are on the surface and in plain view 
while others respond only to profounder inquiry. 

In the first place, membership in the League of 
Nations would involve the United States in greatly 
increased expense. 

First, there would be the cost of sustaining the 
ordinary expenses of the league. As the constitution 
says: “The expense of the secretariat shall be borne 
by the states members of the league in accordance with 
the apportionment of the expenses of the international 
bureau of the Universal Postal Union.”* 

These expenses will be found to be extraordinary 
and are likely to become heavier and heavier as the 
years go on. 

If it was truly a League of Nations, so that the 
work would be carried on through the governmental 
departments of the several nations, it might be more 
economical, but it is to be remembered that the pro¬ 
posed League of Nations is a very different thing. It 
is styled the League of Nations, but, in fact, it is 
another and separate organization, and another and 
higher government, above the nations themselves, and 
the nations in the league agree to be governed by it. 

It is another government in the world with 
another and distinct organization, and not simply the 
nations directly acting, and this new over-government, 
called the league, is to have its own capital city, with 
its own capitol building, with its own official corps, 
and probably a small army of assistants and agents of 
different degrees and rank and authority, with meet¬ 
ings of the executive council, and wth the meetings of 
the parties from different parts of the world constru¬ 
ing the league itself, now to be called the Assembly. 


♦Article V. 



160 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


In addition there are to be many departments to keep 
in touch with the affairs of the nations of the world. 

It is evident that this machinery, and this great 
personnel, will create many expenses, and make im¬ 
mense financial demands, which will not diminish, but 
steadily increase, with the growth of the years. 

Even now one may wonder what kind of economy 
it is that led the Peace Commissioners to select another 
city and secure in it a league building, when The Hague 
with its Peace Palace still exists, just as one may 
wonder why there is an effort to construct a new or¬ 
ganization called the League of Nations, when The 
Hague Peace Conference could be utilized and de¬ 
veloped. Perhaps it yet will be called on. 

Second, there will be additional expenses for the 
operations of the league in running its departments, 
which are likely to multiply; in conducting arbitra¬ 
tions; in investigating conditions and affairs of the 
world; in carrying on wars against nations; and in 
multifarous activities too numerous to specify, but 
which may practically cover everything. 

Plainly this may mean vast expenditures in the 
direct action of this super-government called the 
league, while in addition, there will be very great ex¬ 
pense in keeping up the military establishment of the 
United States so as to be prepared for league emer¬ 
gencies, and the league recommendations, or demands, 
for the United States to send its army and navy to police 
the world, and fight anywhere and everywhere in the 
world, as the league government may indicate. 

With all this expense from the ordinary and 
extraordinary operations of this superior organization, 
and government, of the league in overloading the na¬ 
tions including the Unted States, and the probable wars 
of the league, the citizen of the United States may well 
ask: When will our national taxation be diminished 
and when will the immense national debt be paid? 


LEAGUE AND UNITED STATES 


161 


The citizen may also ask: How many more wars 
can the United States wage without financial distress 
verging on bankruptcy? If the recent war, in which 
the United States was engaged for a very short time, 
cost thirty billions of dollars, what will be the expense 
of future wars? To carry on her own wars will be 
quite enough, but to carry on the wars of the whole 
world, under the direction or dictation of an outside 
league, will soon consume any national surplus and 
cripple the financial arm of the country. Many have 
felt the financial pressure of the recent war, and the 
debt has not yet been paid. War means destruction 
and the people must pay for the loss, but the league 
would bind us to wage other wars—its wars, not ours. 

The nation should never give up its right of judg¬ 
ment and the right to decide when it ought to make 
war or refrain, but the league assumes the right to say 
and the nation that goes into the league obligates itself 
to let the league think for it, and that is not American. 

The league will increase the financial burdens of 
our nation and of the individual citizens of this land. 
First, because of the expense of keeping up the league 
organization; second, because of the cost of the various 
world enterprises of the league, including wars, com¬ 
mercial matters, labor questions, and, practically any¬ 
thing the league may desire; and third, because of our 
own consequential expenses, for example, in sustaining 
our army and navy, and the collateral departments, 
subject to sudden call of the league, and immediate 
action, and the sending of our army and navy to the 
distant parts of the earth at the call of this superior 
government called the league. 

The cost, however, would be more than a money 
cost, in matters relating to the army and navy. 

It will add to the death and casualty list of our 
soldiers, sailors, and marines, for it will mean having 
our men killed or maimed in battle; it will mean having 


162 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


the brave men of our country sick and dying in foreign 
lands, and leaving their bones in remote countries or 
at the bottom of distant seas; and that for affairs and 
quarrels not our own, but for those of a league whose 
iron yoke has been placed on the neck of America. That 
means life as well as money, and it means death. 

Who will estimate that cost? 

The league and its affairs will distract the atten¬ 
tion of the nation from its own home affairs to distant 
affairs not our own, but which naturally belong to 
others, and the same exterior affairs will absorb a con¬ 
siderable proportion of our national and industrial 
energy. 

We would constantly be meddling in foreign 
affairs, which were not our own, and the United States 
would lose the friendship of nations that are not in the 
league, and, probably, of some that are in it, a friend¬ 
ship that might have been preserved had it not been 
that we were under the bond of the league and obey¬ 
ing its behest. All of which may a good providence 
prevent! 

The President tells us that “It is a league which 
can be used for co-operation in any international mat¬ 
ter,” but it may be co-operation in affairs not our own, 
and it may allow the co-operation of foreign nations 
in our affairs. It, therefore, could take over the ques¬ 
tion of extradition, and it could, with a broad interpre¬ 
tation some day take over the question of immigration, 
and force a nation to receive undesirable people, as 
part of its population, when the equality of races is 
settled to the satisfaction of the league which would 
contain the representatives of those very peoples. 

It could decide the tariff and so control the com¬ 
merce of a country, and logically it might force a 
country that needed protection for its industries to 
accept free trade, and any other international question 
which might be so construed by a majority of the 


LEAGUE AND UNITED STATES 


163 


voters, say of the five, though the question was bound 
up with internal and local conditions. 

Practically with internationalism's logic it may be 
interpreted to cover and control almost anything that 
the league or the executive council might desire. 

No American should agree to his country entering 
a league like that which definitely proposes control in 
so many specified ways, and, plainly, can claim control 
in so many other ways, which though obscure in expres¬ 
sion may be made clear by league interpretation to the 
league which intends to do the deciding. 

To say the least, when there is so much against the 
league as a super-government, the nation should not 
take the risk of entering it. 

The league will not do/what some pacifists think it 
could in preventing war,/but it could call our young 
men from home and native land, and banish them to 
distant parts of the earth, to police the world and fight 
in the quarrels of remote peoples, and compel us to pay 
many billions to cover the bills. 

In view of all this, some one may be pardoned for 
saying of the League of Nations that “It is the most 
impudently un-American proposal ever submitted to 
the American people." 

The league, or its operations, may interfere with 
the export trade of the United States, and so injure our 
industries, and injuriously affect those dependent 
thereon. 

It would cut off our trade with the peoples against 
whom the league makes war, for we would be under 
obligation “immediately to subject it to the severance 
of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all 
intercourse," etc., as Article XVI recites, and the 
United States would have to take that obligation if it 
became a member of the League of Nations. Any busi¬ 
ness man can see instantly what a disturbance to Amer¬ 
ican production and trade that w r ould be. 


164 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


The league is likely to interfere with labor and 
capital in this country, through the interference of the 
league’s directorate on labor questions, a directorate 
mainly composed of people of other lands, and, in some 
cases, of business rivals. 

It may, and probably will, bring our wage earner 
down to or toward the level of less elevated countries, 
or at least that will be a danger, for even international 
labor questions must run into and affect internal labor 
by supported competiton, attempts at adjustment to a 
common condition, and the pressure of the league in 
efforts to control labor and, so, the activities of capital 
throughout the world. The scheme and nature of the 
league would permit all this, and already a plan has 
been devised and adopted, directly relating the league 
to the wage question and labor conditions of the world, 
and should the United States enter the league, the busi¬ 
ness man in this country might expect the international 
league inquisitor to knock at the door of his counting- 
room and demand to see his books and know his profits 
and private business affairs. 

It is also within the possibilities that some nation 
may raise a question in regard to the Panama Canal 
and demand that it be taken from under the control of 
the United States of America and internationalized, 
and that the league, aided by a denationalized America, 
with extremely altruistic and idealistic notions not fit 
for this world, and, probably, no other, will decree that 
the canal constructed and paid for by the United States 
will be taken from this country and placed under the 
control of the world, that is to say the league. 

When that comes, unless the American spirit has 
entirely oozed out, America must fight and even fight 
the league, but now it is the part of wisdom to keep out 
of a league which might do such a thing, for if the 
United States happened to be in it it would be bound 
to obey its decison. 


LEAGUE AND UNITED STATES 


165 


W hat has the United States to gain by going into 
this foreign league? 

Absolutely nothing, is the short, and the only 
proper answer. It puts a huge and unbearable burden 
upon America, and gives no adequate benefit in return. 

The league can interfere with and block the United 
States internally and externally, and involve the United 
States in a multitude of major and minor difficulties, 
plunging it into distant wars and even opening the 
United States territory to the passage of warring 
armies, and sometime there may be the possibility of 
such armies lodging in and taking possession of por¬ 
tions of our land, from which it may not be easy to 
dislodge them, and from the league there comes no com¬ 
pensation. From the league membership America has 
nothing to gain. 

Then ask what will this new adventure of going 
into this league cost the United States? It will cost in 
money, in men, in loss of national friendships, and in 
misdirected energy unnecessarily expended. 

The cost will be so great that it cannot be esti¬ 
mated. 

What will the United States lose by going into this 
league of foreign nations? No man and no patent cal¬ 
culator will ever be able to make the footing. 

But the material losses are comparatively small, 
great as they are, in comparison with one other na¬ 
tional loss, and that loss is next to the very life of the 
nation, if it is not that life itself. 

To enter this League of Nations would destroy the 
sovereignty of the United States, for it would make the 
nation subordinate to the league, and the little oli¬ 
garchy that would direct its affairs, an oligarchy com¬ 
posed of a little handful of persons, and not even the 
nations themselves. 

Other nations in the league would be dictating to 
the United States, and the United States would have 


166 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


lost its own free will, and its old independence in de¬ 
cision and action, and would be led about, or driven 
about by the will of others, both indirectly and directly, 
and chiefly by a council of nine. 

Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, who is not antag¬ 
onistic to some kind of a league, calls attention to the 
fact that: “in the Executive Council five powers will 
cast five votes, and the remaining fifty or so states of 
the world can cast no more than four.” 

That does not mean world equality. From the 
experience of the Peace Conference in Paris one may 
see how three persons, or fewer than three, may be able 
to control the entire league. Strange, indeed, would it 
be for the great and free United States to put itself 
under the domination, and at the mercy of two or three, 
or five, or even nine votes. 

Some one may deny that the League of Nations 
would interfere with the independence of the United 
States, but such a denial has no value. The matter is to 
be determined by facts, some of which have been 
presented. 

Everyone knows that if a man who has been con¬ 
ducting his own business goes into partnership with 
other men, he ceases to be the absolute director of the 
business, as he has been. The independence he has had 
is now, by sharing the management with the others 
in the partnership, no longer his. He has lost his inde¬ 
pendence and put himself under those who are in the 
partnership, and, as they are more numerous, they can 
outvote and master him. 

Similarly, when an independent nation, which has 
managed its affairs according to its own sweet will, 
goes into a partnership of nations, the formerly inde¬ 
pendent nation loses that former independence, and 
becomes subject to the wish and will of the partner 
nations. 


LEAGUE AND UNITED STATES 


167 


That illustrates what would happen if the United 
States would go into the partnership called “The 
League of Nations.” The United States would be 
limited by the wish and will of the other nations, and 
would have lost its independence. This is so self-evi¬ 
dent that no argument is needed. 

It is also plain that the League of Nations proposes 
to do certain things—possibly, very many things, and 
just as plain that the nations that go into the league 
obligate themselves to do these things, and to do them 
under the direction of the league. Otherwise the league 
would be a farce. 

With this proposal to do, and this obligation to do 
these things, and to do them under the management of 
the League of Nations, it shows that the nation in the 
league is subordinated to the league, and that as to 
these things the league is the master of the member 
nation. The nation, therefore, thus subordinate to the 
league, has lost its independence, and that would be the 
status of the United States of America if it became 
a partner in this league. 

The matter will be made still plainer if one will 
carefully read the constitution of the League of Nations 
and perceive how it arrogates to itself power of in¬ 
quiry into the affairs of the nations, touching many 
vital things and even those that are internal, and how 
the league management plainly proposes to make de¬ 
mands on nations and to direct them even in the matter 
of wars that the league declares and makes. 

The independence of the nation is gone when this 
higher power or super-government calls upon the na¬ 
tion to honor its obligation, and to conform to the de¬ 
cision and direction of the League of Nations. If the 
United States, therefore, enters and assumes the obli¬ 
gations of membership in this league, it is no longer 
an independent nation. It becomes subordinate and 


168 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


subservient. Then the glory of the great United States 
of America will have departed. 

The league will interfere with our national in¬ 
dependence, and, whereas we now are free to do the 
right according to our own national judgment, then we 
must submit to the decision of others, and submit to 
foreign dictation and others’ ideas of right, or lack of 
right and ultimately this must interfere with the 
interests of our individual citizens in business, and, 
directly or indirectly, even in their private affairs. 

If it be said that it would be the same with the 
other nations, that does not make it any better for 
the United States. The fact remains that the country 
has lost its independence. 

There would be no gain for the United States but 
many losses, and interminable difficulties, including the 
probability of many wars of our own making and not 
of our own making, and not of our own interest. 

That is what it would mean for the United States 
of America to be bound in, and by, such a League of 
Nations. It should need no argument that the United 
States should protect and preserve her independence, 
as she has had it, and not throw it away for a danger¬ 
ous experiment, an extensively advertised notion, or a 
mere theory. 

Some say “But we must sacrifice something.” But, 
it does not follow that we must sacrifice for the sake 
of sacrificing, and there is no argument in such a state¬ 
ment. 

There is nothing self-evident in the assertion that 
we must sacrifice our nation. A sufficient answer is to 
say, we must not sacrifice the nation. 

Why should we destroy or injure our nation? To 
say we should is unnatural and absurd. 

The primary presumption is that we should not 
destroy or diminish the power of one’s nation. To say 


LEAGUE AND UNITED STATES 


169 


we should sounds like hypocritical cant. Again we 
demand a reason. 

Why should we sacrifice our nation? 

Certainly not because somebody wants us to, or 
says we should destroy our nation in whole or part, 
especially when no adequate gain can result. 

No one should sacrifice anything for nothing, and, 
particularly, one should not sacrifice the life or liberty 
of his nation. 

One may say we should give up part of our sov¬ 
ereignty. A sufficient- reply is to say we should not 
give up any part of our sovereignty, large or small. 

Why should we give it up? No good reason has 
been given or can be given. 

Sovereignty is what makes the nation and is part 
of the nation's life. A nation is independent or not in¬ 
dependent, and, if it puts itself under any earthly 
power it ceases to be independent. 

To say we should give it up is simply an assertion. 
To ask us to cut off the right hand, and defend that on 
the ground that it does not kill the whole body and take 
all the life is as great an absurdity. 

Quite a number of things called for by the league 
covenant are contrary to the Constitution of the United 
States, and the President, the Senate, and the entire 
Congress would have no right to go contrary to the 
letter and spirit of the Constitution. They legislate 
and administer under the authority of that instrument 
and have no right to go against it in any sense or in 
any degree, and more than that, the entire people of 
the United States have no right by a referendum or any 
other vote, or any other expression of opinion, to go 
against the Constitution of the country. As long as the 
Constitution stands all must conform to it. 

One duty for all, under the Constitution, is to pre¬ 
serve the independence of the United States, and not 
permit it to come under the direction of any other 


170 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


government or authority. The league is to be an 
authority and a government, and according to the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States there is no power in the 
country that can put the Nation under such an author¬ 
ity or government, and even a treaty ratified by the 
Senate of the United States to that effect could have no 
legal force, for it cannot give up any portion of its 
sovereignty as to and over itself, whatever it may do 
as to exterior matters. 

As a single illustration, take the provision under 
which the league might call upon the United States to 
enter upon a war with some other nation or nations. 

As to the matter of the league calling upon the 
United States to enter into a league-war with her army 
or navy, or both, it is the judgment of the best lawyers, 
absolutely unconstitutional, and that must be the opin¬ 
ion of any intelligent reader of the Constitution of the 
United States, for the making of war is an act of 
sovereignty and the Constitution declares it must be 
ordered by a power within and not exterior to the 
nation. 

In its issue of December 29, 1918, the New York 
Sun, on this point said: 

“For the employment of the armed forces of the 
United States, and the expenditure of money in the 
Treasury produced by the taxation of our citizens, for 
police intervention in a quarrel between two foreign 
nations against neither of which we have direct cause 
of war, and in the absence of a declaration of war by 
us against one or both, there is no warrant in the 
Constitution—no warrant whatever, express or im¬ 
plied. . . , 

“The power to declare war is vested in the Con¬ 
gress alone. Nothing less than an amendment of the 
Constitution by the regular process can transfer to any 
external authority any part of this sovereign function. 
It cannot be done by any treaty or series of conven¬ 
tions. A treaty may be held to override a statutory 


LEAGUE AND UNITED STATES 


171 


enactment, but it cannot possibly be held to override 
a constitutional provision or limitation, or to remove 
any of the restrictions imposed by the Constitution, or 
to add one iota to the powers already conferred by that 
instrument upon the Federal Government. 

“If a treaty could do this, then our form of gov¬ 
ernment could be revolutionized in many particulars, 
without a reference to the required vote of the States, 
merely by the concurrent action of the Executive and 
two-thirds of one house of Congress. 

“Any plan, therefore, for our enlistment in a world 
police, subject to assignment to military or naval duty 
by another authority than the Congress of the United 
States, requires an amendment of the Constitution if 
the Constitution continues to be valid and respected.” 

The United States can go to war whenever it deems 
it wise and necessary, but it must do it under the Con¬ 
stitution, and in the Constitutional way, by its own free 
act, but not under the direction or command of any 
other government or power. 

Power must remain in this country and where the 
Constitution of the United States has lodged it, and 
this Constitution does not authorize any body to part 
with any portion of the nation’s sovereignty to any 
party or for any purpose. 

For the United States to go into the League of 
Nations and submit itself to the terms of its covenant 
would be to part with some part or all of its sover¬ 
eignty; would be to violate its own Constitution, and 
reduce itself to a subordinate position, and this would 
be treason on the part of those who thus betrayed the 
nation, or aided and abetted the criminal act. The 
United States cannot become a member of this league 
and remain the same independent United States of 
America this noble nation has been for one hundred 
and forty-three years. If it is voted to do this uncon¬ 
stitutional act the people should rise in protest and 
the Supreme Court should declare it null and void. 


XII 


WILL THE LEAGUE PREVENT WAR? 

The common idea is that what is called the 
League of Nations is a league to preserve peace be¬ 
tween the nations, and it is asserted that it will pre¬ 
vent war. The immediate question, therefore is: Will 
this proposed league prevent war and preserve peace? 

Up to the present time no league or alliance of 
nations has ever positively prevented war. It is, there¬ 
fore, not a matter of mere curiosity that one is led to 
ask: 

Is this league a certain preventive of war? If one 
answers that it is, the natural inquiry is: 

How will it prevent war? When people intelli¬ 
gently try to answer that question they may discover 
that the statement does not rest on a very strong foun¬ 
dation. To reply, “they say that it will” is no proof. 
How will it prevent war? Answer that explicitly and 
put the answer on a proper basis. 

War is horrible! That is only too true. Nearly 
every one will admit that, and almost everybody will 
agree that it will be a good thing if something can be 
found that will prevent war. That will not be disputed, 
for “so say we all of us.” The human heart longs for 
a real preventive. 

But it does not follow from this that we must ac¬ 
cept everything or anything that may be presented as 
a war preventive. Because it is invented and proposed 
does not prove that it is a sure cure for war conditions 
and warlike tendencies. The scheme, whatever it is, 
must be scrutinized, and, not until it is thoroughly 
studied and we are entirely satisfied, should it be 
accepted. 

Going back to any and every plan, we ask: What 
will prevent war under all circumstances? 


WILL THE LEAGUE PREVENT WAR 173 


Through the centuries the human race has been 
fighting within itself, parts of the race with other 
parts, and each and every part at some time or often. 

All this involves the presumption, assumption, or 
fact that in humanity there is something that provokes, 
or impels to war. 

The babe soon asserts itself physically to secure 
and gratify its demands, two boys playing together 
will turn and fight each other, and so with youth and 
mature manhood. Families have conflicts with fami¬ 
lies, community with community, tribe with tribe, and 
so nation with nation. 

The inference is that there is something in the 
very nature of humanity that impels man to fight his 
fellow man, and combined humanity in the nation to 
war with another nation, and this leads to the conclu¬ 
sion that naturally man is a fighting animal, almost 
as much so as the beasts in the jungle. 

That being the case an analysis of man should 
show some elements in his nature that impel to war 
or which may be aroused to war. 

First, we find the impulse of self-defence, which is 
implanted in man for his self-preservation. So men 
instinctively fight to defend their lives, and “self 
preservation is the first law of nature. 

Second, there is the impulse to protect what is 
his, as his property, his family, his honor, etc. It is a 
recognition of the distinction between meum and tuum, 
mine and thine. 

Third, there is the impulse to defend what are 
regarded as rights, as, for example personal, or na¬ 
tional freedom, and self-determination, for example, 
in localization and movement. 

Fourth, there is the impulse to acquire, called ac¬ 
quisitiveness, the desire, for example, to add to ma¬ 
terial possessions and to do so rightfully or wrongfully. 


174 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


When these impulses are excited or crossed war¬ 
like actions are likely to follow, first, in the individual, 
then, in the community group, and, ultimately, in the 
larger and more highly organized combination of the 
nation or nations, and a state of war naturally de¬ 
velops. 

So the question is, how to prevent the individual 
wronging and warring with the individual; how to 
prevent the tribe wronging and warring with another 
tribe; and how to prevent a nation wronging and war¬ 
ring with another nation. Or, how to prevent human¬ 
ity resorting to force, or being compelled to resort to 
force, in resisting a wrong or maintaining a right. 

That is the problem 

Dealing with the individual, what must be done? 

There must be enlightenment, so that the man will 
take a well informed view of himself and others; hence, 
there must be the teaching of individual rights and 
mutual rights; there must be the distinct teaching and 
formulation of duties, individual and mutual; and there 
must be the influence of others and of organized society 
to restrain, impel, and train in right thinking and right 
acting, so that moral forces within, and moral forces 
without, the man, may bring him to think and do what 
is right because it is right. 

So it is with the larger individual—the community 
and the nation. 

It may happen that one nation may be so much 
more powerful than the other or enemy nation that it 
can defend itself, enforce its will, and crush the opposi¬ 
tion. That may protect that particular nation, but that 
very power may be a temptation to make war on the 
weaker nation. 

Supposing, however, that there is no such physical 
power to control or defend and keep from war, where 
can be found that which will check warlike impulses, 
preserve peace, and prevent war? 


WILL THE LEAGUE PREVENT WAR 175 


If to the nation can be given intelligent concep¬ 
tions of mutual rights, and a moral self-control, so that 
it will make right determinations according to the 
principles of righteousness and human helpfulness, the 
nation will be self-restrained from going to war. 

Now, a nation, large or small, is made up of in¬ 
dividuals, and is in the aggregate as a nation what the 
individuals are, and, reduced to its lowest terms that 
means if each and every individual in the nation is 
thus swayed by the right, the whole nation will be and 
do the right. 

That means the enligtened and morally self-con¬ 
trolled individual goes to make up the morally con¬ 
trolled nation, and so, by making right the individuals 
composing the nation, the nation will become right. 

In other words, the only sure cure for and pre¬ 
ventive of war, is the morally regenerated individual, 
and the morally regenerated nation—the individuals 
in the nation and the nations in the world. 

But all individuals and all nations are not regene¬ 
rated morally, and, though the work of moral regene¬ 
ration should go on, it will be said that in the mean¬ 
time, we must have some method or expedient to pre¬ 
vent war. 

Theories, cures, preventives may be suggested, but 
any one who ignores these fundamental principles in 
human nature and human life, and comes with some 
professed panacea is but a quack doctor, and no matter 
how many testimonials or high sounding indorsements 
he may have, he will not work a genuine and permanent 
cure. 

Back of such schemes is usually physical force 
to be applied to the unruly and some form of penalty 
to deter, but if the recalcitrant nation can muster force 
enough it will overcome and destroy the peacemaking 
combination, and then make war freely. There is 
needed something stronger and more penetrating than 


176 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


physical force and external machinery, for war is not 
necessarily in, or prevented by, political organization 
or diplomatic agreements. 

War is actual or possible because of what is in 
human nature, and war is in human nature. There 
are forces and passions in human nature that make 
for war, and only need the occasion, and when these 
passions rage and these forces are let loose, no me¬ 
chanical device that man may invent can prevent war. 

Promises may be made and exchanged and may be 
meant at the time of making, but it does not follow 
that they will be surely kept. 

Nations may make promises that they will con¬ 
sult before going to war, and if they decide to war, 
they will not go to war until after an interval of three 
months, but the excited and angry nation will not wait 
three months and give the other nation that time to 
make a better preparation for attack or to meet the 
attack. 

Neither nations nor individuals can be depended 
upon absolutely at all times to keep their pledges, and 
it is the common teaching of history that nations do 
not keep their agreements when they want to break 
them and think they can do so safely to themselves. 

Wise students of history know that manufactured 
restraints that have no basis in the moral nature are 
not more than spiders’ webs, and even solemn treaties, 
not recognized and supported by the conscience, are 
nothing more than “scraps of paper” easily torn and 
blown away. 

But one admits that the league will not prevent 
war, but asserts that it will diminish the number of 
wars. If so, then it should not be labelled as a sure 
preventive. 

Well, what certainty is there that it will greatly 
diminish the number and the extent of wars? It was 
supposed that the principle of arbitration would do 


WILL THE LEAGUE PREVENT WAR 177 


that, and, particularly, that that would be the effect 
of the Hague Conference, which would surely do that, 
and yet in spite of these methods and institutions en¬ 
lightened, civilized, learned, and so-called Christian 
Europe has just had the most horrible war for very 
many centuries, though the Hague Conference and 
tribunal were in force. That was an association of na¬ 
tions and, agreement among them, making promises of 
peace and amity, and alliances never yet made wars 
impossible or even improbable. 

It is presumed, however, by some, that the nations 
that, so to speak, have signed up in the league, will not 
go to war. 

But history shows that members of alliances and 
leagues break away from their league obligations when 
it suits them, and they can do so, without too much 
cost, and, in some moods, regardless of cost, and not¬ 
withstanding probable or certain results adverse to 
themselves. 

But what about the nations that are not in the 
league? How can they be controlled? 

Suppose they refuse to be controlled by the league, 
and resent its suggestions or dictation? How then 
could war be prevented? Well, first, it may be said, it 
can be done by the use and restraint of economic forces. 
In plain words by a boycott—by a refusal of the na¬ 
tions in the league to buy from or sell to the nation 
against the league or which the league was against. 
But, then, the nation under economic chastisement 
can refuse to buy from or sell to the nations in the 
league, and the blow on the recalcitrant nation reflects 
and flies back, strikes, and damages the correcting 
nations, so that the league nations in punishing the 
erring nation punish themselves. That does not seem 
effective or satisfactory. 

What is to be done then? 



178 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


As a last resort physical or military force must 
be exerted. But to have recourse to the use of the 
army and navy means war. To use such physical or 
military force is war, and, in such a case, we have the 
league that was established to preserve the peace and 
to prevent war, actually making war. So the league 
would fail in its professed mission to prevent war and 
the supposed peace league would really be a fighting 
league, making war, and, so far, the league would be 
a confessed failure. 

A little examination of the constitution of the 
league will show that the league is formed and pro¬ 
ceeds on the presumption that there will be war, that 
war is probable, if not certain, and that the league 
will be in it, and it plans to make war even on nations 
within the league when they do not conform to the 
directions of the league, so that it would be possible 
under the law of the league to see members of the 
league fighting each other. 

As has been stated by another: “It legalizes war 
in seven cases and makes it compulsory in three.” 

So this peace making and peace preserving league 
is a warlike and war-making machine even to the 
point of fighting its own member nations even before 
they have fired a gun or made an advance.* 

The league itself is a fighting mechanism delib¬ 
erately put together to fight and yet professing to be 
a peace-making arrangement. 

Yet in spite of what the constitution of the league 
says about the league itself resorting to the use of 
military force, some have inferred that it is a real 
Quaker and a very passive non-combatant. The truth 
is it is a machine constructed to carry on war possibly 
throughout the whole world. One needs but read the 
covenant to perceive that. 


*See Article XVI. 





WILL THE LEAGUE PREVENT WAR 179 


The league itself may be provocative of war by 
its attempted oversight, inspection of, and interference 
with matters pertaining to men and nations as is pos¬ 
sible, probable, and, we may say, certain, in a hundred 
ways. 

Further, as suggested, war might even arise be¬ 
tween the member nations of the league. For example, 
it might arise from differences of policy or method 
among them in the operations of the league, for it is 
sometimes true that what affects one unpleasantly and 
injuriously may affect others, and all. 

There may be conflicts growing out of national 
ambitions, and what are regarded as national rights. 

So, right in the league council itself the steel and 
flint may strike, and the spark may explode the world 
again and again. The League of Nations is far from 
being a sure preventive for war. 

The league plainly provides for making war 
against its own nation members. Thus, in Article 
XVI, when one of these member nations fails to keep 
its covenants under Article XII, XIII or XV, we read, 
in Article XVI, “it shall thereby ipso facto be deemed 
to have committed an act of war against all the other 
members,” and the league, subjects it “to the severance 
of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all 
intercourse between their nationals and the nationals 
of the covenant-breaking state, and the prevention of 
all financial, commercial or personal intercourse,” etc. 

In addition the same article says: 

“It shall be the duty of the executive council in 
such case to recommend what effective military or 
naval force the members of the league shall severally 
contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect 
the covenants of the league,” that is to say, to fight 
this co-member of the league, that went into the league 
because it would prevent war, and the league nations 
agree, according to the article to sustain “the financial 


180 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


and economic measures, and, also “will afford passage 
through their territory to the forces of any of the high 
contracting parties," or “members of the league." 

This does not look like peace making, but reveals 
the league as a warlike and war-making machine. Its 
own story tells it does not expect to prevent, but to 
wage war even on its own members who do not 
promptly obey the league's dictation. 

The individual nations in the league agree not to 
go to war with any other member nation “until three 
months after the award by the arbitrators, or a recom¬ 
mendation of the executive council," (Art. XII) but, 
as already suggested, an angry nation is not likely to 
wait three months for the other side to prepare, when 
it would have a great advantage in a quick attack. 

Article X says: “The members of the league un¬ 
dertake to respect and preserve as against external 
aggression the territorial integrity and existing poli¬ 
tical independence of all members of the league. In 
case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or 
danger of such aggression the executive council shall 
advise upon the means by which the obligation shall 
be fulfilled." 

The obligation is to preserve the state or states 
against external aggression, and that means that the 
nations in the league shall follow the “advice" of the 
executive committee, which means a resort to war by 
the league and its member nations. 

Here is a chance for a good many wars, growing 
out of the obligation to preserve the territory and the 
political independence of countries large and small in 
all sections of the world. This alone might mean 
fighting for generations, and does not look like pre¬ 
venting war. To resist aggression means the use of 
force. 

But “the world is growing better." Well, how 
much better? If it is better, is it not still pretty bad? 


WILL THE LEAGUE PREVENT WAR 181 


What about the world in 1914-1918? What about what 
has followed? What about Central and Eastern Eu¬ 
rope even while the Peace Conference was in session? 
Is it so much better, that it is good enough? The 
world has not grown so much better that the average 
nation can be trusted either out of or in a league. 
Even an ideal scheme with high promises does not 
give absolute certainty and safety. 

What civilized human nature in the Twentieth 
Century is capable of, in the line of bad faith, lawless¬ 
ness, and barbarity, one has only to look at the Russian 
bolsheviki now, and to remember the conduct of certain 
other European countries in the late war. 

These things show how much confidence can be 
placed in promises and leagues, so the old exhortation: 
“Trust in God and keep your powder dry” is good ad¬ 
vice for the nation today, league or no league. 

The plain lesson is that nothing is worthy of 
implicit confidence short of the moral regeneration of 
the human heart and the entire moral nature of hu¬ 
manity. That is the fountain from which flow the 
streams of human conduct. 

Even a partnership of nations cannot be trusted 
very far. 

Taking another line of thought we will perceive 
that “The League of Nations,” professing to perpet¬ 
uate peace naturally tends to provoke war. 

Returning to the composition of this league we 
see that the dominating nations the covenant puts into 
the league are the Allies who have just fought a great 
war, for over four years, against what have been 
termed the Central Powers of Europe. 

The league, therefore, incorporates a triumphant 
group of nations who have had, and may continue 
passively to have an antagonism, against the defeated 
nations who struck such terrific blows, and caused 
such wide spread suffering, and the defeated nations 


182 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


are likely to believe that a positive antagonism per¬ 
sists and will continue to exist and in them it will be 
reciprocated. The league will, while these feelings 
endure, always be provocative, or be so regarded by 
those who were beaten, and the hatred is likely to con¬ 
tinue for at least two generations, and may for a much 
longer period. 

Such a one-sided league will inevitably provoke 
and create another and opposite league, for the most 
practical sort of logic shows that this league leads to 
a counter league. 

This league, composed almost entirely, if not en¬ 
tirely, of the Allies, logically necessitates another, and 
antagonistic, League of Nations, formed, as they would 
say, in self-defense for mutual protection and that 
means, sooner or later, when the defeated nations re¬ 
cover strength, that there will be war, which the now 
proposed League of Nations will not be able to prevent. 
In other words, that means that the present proposed 
League of Nations will provoke the formation of an 
opposite league, and so will be provocative of war. 

Such a counter-league, as things now look, would 
probably contain the new Germany, which, with the 
training of the centuries, is sure to have a future full 
of large possibilities 

It is evident that Germany is destined to be a 
great and powerful nation again, how soon no one can 
foretell, and the German spirit and the German mem¬ 
ory will persist, Kaiser or no Kaiser, and from her 
undevastated country she may quickly rise again to 
a leadership in her section of Europe, and, when she 
does, she is likely to have Austria and, possibly, or 
probably, Russia in her train, and even some or all 
of the little buffer states which have been erected to 
hem her in, and these nations are likely to form a 
league of their own, and, if they want to do so, the 


WILL THE LEAGUE PREVENT WAR 183 


present proposed League of Nations could not pre- 
vent it. 

Germany will probably have preserved enough of 
her old skill in diplomacy and intrigue to win over her 
neighbors, including the new nations the Allies are 
counting on, and in some way offer them some ma¬ 
terial or commercial advantage, and so, attach them 
to herself and her policies, and if she can secure the 
support of Russia, which according to present indica¬ 
tions is more than possible, a great career is still ex¬ 
ceedingly probable, especially to the eastward in Eu¬ 
rope and in Asia. 

Then the second league would be a rival, and an 
antagonistic, league, and, if so, the outcome would be 
another vast and monstrous war, for, in Germany, 
there would remain motive enough to impel her, at the 
favorable time, to avenge herself for what she would 
call the wrongs done her by the other league of na¬ 
tions, or those that formed the Peace Conference in 
1919, and this would be popular with a people taught 
to believe that the war of 1914-1918 was thrust upon 
them by some of the Allies, and that the Germans had 
merely defended the Fatherland. 

So, with the two leagues in existence, there will 
be continued preparations for war, and such a situa¬ 
tion will make war certain. So the formation of the 
present proposed league may not prevent but provoke 
war, and instead of being good it may turn out to be 
evil. 

It may be said that with the loss of her navy 
and with the military restrictions placed upon Ger¬ 
many there is no probability of war. If that be so, 
then where is there any great necessity for having the 
proposed League of Nations to prevent war? 

To infer so much from the present condition of 
Germany is hardly safe, and it is not sound in the 
light of history. Napoleon overran Prussia and placed 


184 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


restrictions of a severe and very limiting character 
upon the country, even limiting her to a small army, 
but Prussia used those very restrictions to enable her 
to build up her military power by training the small 
number, then sending them home, and repeating the 
process, so that she struck Bonaparte very heavy blows 
not long after. Reports already tell of the impressive 
sight of young life, of boys and youth in Germany and 
in great numbers. 

Then war may be waged somewhat differently 
after awhile. Some think it will be waged from the 
air and with chemicals, and all know what a great 
use of chemistry was made by Germany during the late 
war, in the introduction of deadly gasses and fire. No 
one can tell what new devices may be resorted to in 
the future and, perhaps, in the near future. 

Since writing these words another has taken up a 
a similar line of thought, and, alluding to the methods 
of the recent war, says: 

“Are we sure that similar conditions will prevail 
even a decade hence? This war began the develop¬ 
ment of two new forms of warfare on land which may 
very easily so gain in scope, power and paralyzing 
effect as to revolutionize military methods. These are 
the employment of aircraft and the tremendous in¬ 
crease in the devastating force of high explosives. If 
it should turn out that war in future is to be waged— 
not so much against armies in the field as against cities, 
industries, transportation lines and civilian activities 
generally of the belligerent countries, and if this 
frightful and fiendishly cruel warfare is to be carried 
on by swarms of raiding aircraft, dropping tons of 
terrifically powerful explosives, which will simply wipe 
whole communities out in a gingle blast of limitless 
destruction—then a nation will not need the millions 
of infantry now necessary, but can win its victory 
with a comparatively few skilled air pilots fed by corps 


WILL THE LEAGUE PREVENT WAR 185 


of chemists distilling death in a hidden series of hell’s 
kitchens. 

“It is not enough to retort that this is a game at 
which two can play. It is a game dependent upon in¬ 
vention and scientific research and the great gamble 
of discovery; and only one of the players may have 
been fortunate. But even if science follows her usual 
course and reveals her secrets to a lot of scattered 
searchers almost simultaneously, the point is that the 
application of these unhappy discoveries to warfare 
will not require the prolonged drilling of mighty arm¬ 
ies of men, but could be launched almost in a day by 
any nation having a large mercantile fleet. And this 
the peace treaty does not attempt to forbid or even 
limit.” 

Then the writer continues: 

“However, even if a war must still have huge 
armies to carry it on, a people like the Germans, with 
a gift for organization, regimentation and ready obe¬ 
dience—with the logic to recognize at once the econ¬ 
omy, precision and swiftness of conscription—might 
easily establish a new world’s record for putting a 
formidable force in the field. With them, indeed, it 
would probably be more a matter of equipment than 
of men, for we must remember that much of our 
rapidity was due to the fact that we had been making 
munitions for the Allies for years, and so had our 
plants all going at top speed. 

“Here the peace treaty does intervene. Germany’s 
munition factories will be pretty well put out of com¬ 
mission. But this brings us to another factor in the 
situation. Germany will need, if she is ever to strike 
a dangerous blow at any enemy, precisely the same sort 
of preliminary covering by some power which is pre¬ 
pared for war that the French and Russians gave to 
the British and the Americans. It would have been 
useless for the British to be able to create a first-class 


186 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


army in a year and a half if the Germans had been able 
to win the war and dictate peace to the continent while 
the unready British were preparing. As for us, we 
would never have got into this war at all; and a per¬ 
tinent question is, Would we have been ready when the 
victorious Germans brought the next war to this hemi¬ 
sphere? A heavily worded and ever-mobilized Mon¬ 
roe Doctrine would have been hardly sufficient. 

“Now Germany and any possible lesser allies she 
may pick up in mid-Europe will be in the same posi¬ 
tion. She must be covered by a friendly and prepared 
power while she is getting ready. But this is only 
another way of saying that she will never again be 
dangerous so long as she stands alone. We all know 
that. Even the Kaiser probably knows that the best¬ 
armed Germany cannot, unassisted, hope to establish 
her rule ‘ueber Alles.’ Bismarck knew it well when 
he was alive and warned his countrymen against ‘any 
cock-of-the-walk business.’ Even if Germany were to 
become again as strong as she was in 1914, she prob¬ 
ably has learned not to attempt to fight alone. 

“So the whole question resolves itself into the 
possibility that she may eventually find allies. If she 
should, then these allies, being as well armed as any¬ 
body under the “League of Nations,” could quite pos¬ 
sibly hold a defensive front while Germany was get¬ 
ting ready behind it to pour her millions into the fray. 
These allies also would be in as good a position to 
help arm the German forces as the other members of 
the “league” would be to arm their own. Moreover, 
German industrial skill would very speedily turn their 
plowshare factories into sword works.” 

Any one may see that Germany has possible allies 
right around her, and that all that will be needed, 
will be the contributing circumstances or the favorable 
accident to bring about a rehabilitation and a re¬ 
assertion. 


WILL THE LEAGUE PREVENT WAR 187 


The fact remains that unless human nature is 
radically reformed and regenerated war is a practical 
certainty. The nations, like individuals, have primal 
impulses which may be aroused in a moment, and, even 
between the nations in the leagues, personal and na¬ 
tional ambitions and interests might clash, and, then, 
how could the proposed league to prevent war actually 
prevent war? 

Then it might be possible for a nation in one 
league to leave that league and go into the other, and 
shift the balance of power, so that the newer league 
would have the preponderance of strength. 

Thus, simply to illustrate the point, Japan might, 
for any cause, feel aggrieved, or imagine it to her in¬ 
terest to leave the present league and enter the sup¬ 
posed new league, and thus the balance might be 
seriously disturbed, and the certainty of a war, and 
the uncertainty of the outcome of the war, might be 
greatly changed. For Japan take any other nation for 
the illustration and the result would be essentially 
the same. 

So the proposed League of Nations, the existence 
of which may have provoked the formation of an op¬ 
posing league, would in its train have provoked an¬ 
other wide-spread war, thus again failing to prevent 
war. 

But it may be said that Germany may be let into 
the league after awhile. On the other hand all in the 
league do not want Germany in, and who can blame 
France for not wanting Germany in a league to pre¬ 
vent a recurrence of the recent war? On the other 
hand, also, it is not likely that Germany will want to 
go into the league that is manifestly intended to re¬ 
strain her, unless she hoped for some immediate gain, 
for example, a mandate to administer her lost colonies, 
as was said to have been the case shortly before she 
signed the treaty of peace, and it is very improbable 


188 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


that Germany, for very, very many years, will want, 
or be willing, to go into the league absolutely domi¬ 
nated by France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and the 
United States of America, as is now plainly presented 
in the present league constitution, where these five 
nations are a majority of the council of nine, which 
is really the working section of the league. 

Or, suppose Germany, Russia, and some kindred 
nations do get into the league, they may with their 
present views manage to get a controlling influence 
and use it as an instrument for carrying out their am¬ 
bitious purposes, what would happen to the United 
States and similar nations before they could withdraw 
and form another league, or merely withdraw? It re¬ 
quires very little intuition to perceive the possibility 
of certain influences in a league of nations combining 
secretly and disrupting the league, and creating other 
wars in the process or after this rupture. There is no 
insurance company to guarantee the secret good be¬ 
havior of every nation in the league, and the league 
has no way of preventing secret understandings se¬ 
cretly, arrived at, and an explosion would always be a 
possibility, and a league to ward off danger might it¬ 
self always be in danger. 

That there might be a combination of nations that 
could divide the league even if they held membership 
therein, is one of the probabilities verging on absolute 
certainty. 

At this very time (July, 1919) the United States 
Senate is making formal inquiry as to a secret treaty 
or alliance, or memorandum of a proposed treaty or 
alliance between Germany, Japan, and Russia, to aid 
Russia, and there can be no doubt that there is a possi¬ 
bility that these three nations may draw together and 
then attract smaller powers to them. There are many 
reasons why they would be likely to form some kind 
of a combination. There is a trend together of Ger- 


WILL THE LEAGUE PREVENT WAR 189 


many and Russia and Germany is facing eastward. 
Russia is largely Asiatic and her immediate neighbor 
is Japan, now facing to the West, the East, and the 
South. With these three powers in combination the 
chances are that the young nations between Germany 
and Russia will be under pressure, political, economic, 
or otherwise, which may ultimately amount to domina¬ 
tion, if these three powers should be out of the pro¬ 
posed league. But if they enter the league the prob¬ 
ability is that the same interests would hold them to¬ 
gether and they would be practically, or actually, a 
league within the league, that sooner or later would 
divide the league in sentiment and then split into two 
parts, and, if the United States were in the league, 
this country would have to take sides, and another 
great conflict would be inevitable. 

With the circumstances involved such a league 
must ultimately make for war and not for peace, and, 
as a prominent German has said: “So long as Germany 
is outside the league, the latter is simply an alliance 
against Germany.” 

This shows that Germany regards the league as 
a menace to it, and sooner or later will try to defend 
herself against it. 

Now in view of the war and the doubtful future 
in Europe the European Allies would be perfectly 
justified in forming an alliance to preserve the peace, 
and to see that the terms of the peace treaty are duly 
carried out, but, then it should be squarely so under¬ 
stood, and not as a world league for peace and a good 
deal more, for this proposed league is not a world 
league of the nations of the world, and it is not simply 
a league to prevent war, but a scheme to rule the whole 
world by a few persons, and in doing this may make 
many wars possible, or probable, or certain. 

The proposed league of nations plainly cannot 
prevent war, and that fact should be recognized and 


190 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


admitted, and many do recognize this truth. Further, 
it should be seen that it is not based on the idea of 
no war, but on the probability, if not the certainty, of 
war, and, so the league’s constitution gives the league 
functions for declaring and carrying on war, and em¬ 
powers the league organization to call upon every na¬ 
tion in the league to respond by the support of their 
armies and navies, which they are under obligation to 
do, and these wars are to be under the conduct of the 
executive management of the league. So that the 
league is an arrangement for making and carrying 
on war, and, consequently for directing and controlling 
the subordinate nations in the league and their affairs, 
in many ways. 

Thus the facts show that the league will not pre¬ 
vent war, but may make war. Then, if the League of 
Nations will not prevent war, and, it is not certain it 
will greatly diminish war, but is prepared to make 
war, and may wage war, it is not what many thought 
it was, and, therefore is not what they want. 

As illustrative of the difficulty of preventing war 
one has but to recall the fact that while the great war 
was supposed to be over, and the Peace Conference 
was in session in Paris surrounded by great and vic¬ 
torious armies, ready to respond to the word of com¬ 
mand, nearly all of Europe, east of the Rhine was still 
plunged into the war of the most terrible kind, most 
of it of an intestinal character. 

Further this shows that wars are no longer wars 
of governments merely but also wars of peoples and 
factions, and that destructive science can add immense 
physical force to the action of small bodies., 

To prevent war something must go deeper into 
human nature than the superficial touch of a League of 
Nations. Something must go down into the depths 
of man’s moral and intellectual nature. 


WILL THE LEAGUE PREVENT WAR 191 


The league does not do that and so the League of 
Nations cannot prevent war. Then, if the league can¬ 
not do what it proposes to do, what good is the so- 
called League of Nations? It can be of little or no 
good to those who have imagined it will prevent war 
and people should not be deceived. 


XIII 


ALTERNATIVES 


People have been told by influential and insin¬ 
uating voices that unless the United States goes into 
this league-trap, with its cheese-crumb in sight, the 
world will be immediately plunged into a horrible war. 

When anybody say that, or any thing like it, he 
says what he does not know, and cannot prove. He 
is trying to play on the weakness, the fear, and the 
credulity of poor humanity. He tries to make an asser¬ 
tion do the work of a fact or an argument. 

The statement has no probable truth in it. If this 
league is not formed, the non-formation will not cause 
war, and certainly not immediate war. 

First, the conditions that brought on the late war 
have been radically changed. They have been re¬ 
versed, and the antagonistic nations that were strong 
are now weak and crippled. 

It would be a safer prophecy to say that the 
league, if formed, will bring on war, and if the United 
States is in it, this country will be kept busy at the 
dictation of the league, fighting where it has no concern 
and paying its billions for league operations, and this 
may go on for a hundred years, for the spirit that 
would put the nation into the league could keep it in. 
The fact is war has been going on steadily for years, 
and the probability is that wars will occur with a 
league or without a league. 

Such a subtle, extended and highly financed prop¬ 
aganda has been carried on in the interest of this 
dangerous league-project that some have concluded 
that there is nothing else to do but to accept it. They 
are told that it is this or nothing. It is this or war. 

Those who say these things cannot know that this 
is so, while some persons who talk this way seem to 
be guilty of a sort of false pretence. They are trying 


ALTERNATIVES 


193 


to palm off on an innocent public an assertion for 
an argument, or a bold and bald declaration as an in¬ 
disputable fact. They are putting a false label on the 
goods, which, where intentional, is a criminal offense. 

Some may be deceived by bluff and bluster, but 
they should be undeceived. It is not true that it is this 
or nothing—this league or nothing, or some thing 
worse, for there may be, and are, other things or 
methods that may be chosen which are better than 
this proposed League of Nations. 

There are alternatives that may be considered, 
any one of which is far better for the purpose than 
the scheme called the League of Nations. 

First, let all the other nations who want to be in 
such a league form one of their own, with the United 
States not in it, but with the United States having 
special care of the Western Hemisphere, and sym¬ 
pathetic toward, that alliance and ready to be appealed 
to when a necessity arises. 

The Western Hemisphere is doubtless enough for 
one nation to be responsible for, in the matter of pro¬ 
tection and other help, and that responsibility is in¬ 
volved in the Monroe Doctrine which the United States 
long ago proclaimed, and in that proclamation declared 
its willingness to help its section of the world, and in 
doing so to make sacrifices if they were found neces¬ 
sary. 

Second, let the allies who have had an alliance 
during the recent war, and to some extent before the 
war, continue their alliance, and, if they please, call 
it a league, and add other features if they so desire. 

Then let there be an understanding that when a 
circumstance, like the late war, arises, the United 
States will be sympathetic, and will lend aid if it seems 
wise at the time, the United States being the judge 
for itself as to the wisdom, the method, and the time, 
but not bound in advance as the proposed league would 


194 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


hind it. and free from any outside direction or com¬ 
mand. 

If co-operation is the one thing aimed at, this ar¬ 
rangement, with a common understanding, will meet 
the reasonable demand of the occasion, on the part of 
the United States but without sinking its sovereignty 
in any particular, or committing itself to any course 
of action prior to the circumstance, the time, and the 
untrammeled consideration. 

But it may be said that this will not be the same 
for the other nations. With the sympathetic support 
of the United States understood, and illustrated by 
what she did in the late war, what more is needed? 

If the United States will not stand by the other 
nations when they are right, with an understanding 
such as stated, is it likely she could be depended upon 
even with the understanding in the league ? 

What more could be needed? 

But, says one, it will not mean the same for the 
members of the league. Why not? 

It is answered that in such cases the league could 
not command the United States. Well, if that is what 
they mean, that means the United States would have 
lost its sovereignty and would have become subject 
to another power. That they should not demand of 
this free country, and the United States should not 
put herself in a position where any nation, or combina¬ 
tion of nations, can command her, but always should 
be free to use her own judgment freely and without 
compulsion of any kind. 

If subjection to the command of another power 
is what is intended, then the United States should make 
it plain that she must be her own sovereign, and be 
perfectly free to decide for herself when she would 
go to war and how. 

She was free to help in the late war and she sent 
her aid, and her sons died for the cause represented 


ALTERNATIVES 


195 


by the allies. She did it though she was not in any 
League of Nations and she was not even classed as 
an “ally,” and so it was said: “The allies and the 
United States. ,, 

What she did then, without being in a league, she 
can do again without giving any league control over 
her affairs. She may do it again but the United States 
must be the judge of the circumstances and of her own 
duty. 

The position of the United States still is peculiar. 
She still is geographicaly isolated from the old 
world, and must remain so. It may be said that the 
ocean is not the barrier it once was. That, for the 
sake of argument may be admitted. It may not be 
exactly the same. Let us say, it is not so much of a 
barrier, but three-thousand miles of salt water on one 
side and five thousand miles of salt water on the other, 
still make somthing of a barrier. Certainly, at the 
present time no cannon yet constructed can fire from 
Europe to New York, or from the Asiatic coast strike 
San Francisco, as a gun might send a shall from 
Calais to Dover or to London. The ocean remains 
something of a barrier—a great barrier still—and the 
United States continues to be geographically isolated 
from the old world and with its own vast hemisphere 
to look after with a big brother’s care, and possibly 
against some of the very nations in or out of the league. 

Orators, referring to this position of the United 
States, geographically separated from the old worlds, 
picture it as a providential separation, and endeavor 
to show that this isolation gives it an opportunity in 
an independent manner to spread its religious influence 
east and west, and north and south to the rest of the 
earth. All this is equally true of the United States 
politically, and its geographical separation should be 
taken into the calculation. 


196 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


The United States has been trusted by other na¬ 
tions largely because of its isolation, and because 
it has not been mixed up with the affairs of the older 
countries. 

If it does mix in these affairs, as the league pro¬ 
poses, the probability is that the United States will 
not, to the same extent or in the same degree, hold the 
confidence of the other countries and be able in the 
same degree to exert a beneficial influence over them. 
What the United States did in the great war and in 
subsequent international affairs has already modified 
the regard of some nations. The geographical isolation 
is a great asset of the United States both morally and 
politically and the United States cannot afford to 
throw this asset away. 

Separated from the entanglements of other coun¬ 
tries, the United States can be the friend of all the 
nations. Entangled in a League of Nations it will be 
understood to be the friend of the nations in the 
league, and other nations will be suspicious and, per¬ 
haps, treat us as an open enemy. 

For the United States to stay out of this league, 
and every league of the sort, does not mean the aband¬ 
onment of the Allies and the world, but the preserva¬ 
tion of its cherished independence, and its freedom to 
help the world, when and how, according to its own 
judgment, and not at the dictation of another, while, 
at the same time, it may have a fair opportunity to 
attend to its own business, and be friendly, as far as 
possible, toward all the nations in all the continents 
and the islands of all the seas. 

Further, staying out of the league does not mean 
loss of interest in the affairs of the world, for it may 
have a larger and more effective interest because with 
its independence it can act more freely with its own 
intelligence and on its own volition. 


ALTERNATIVES 


197 


America was in no League of Nations when she 
went into the war to save the world in 1917, and to 
the fighting front in 1918, but she went in, and, what 
she did then, she can do again, without being in such 
a League of Nations, which will tend more and more 
to bind her hand and foot, and make her the slave of 
others, and fasten on the world another and supreme 
government administered by a few who may seriously 
interfere with the liberties of man. 

If the league ever materializes, the council of nine 
is likely to become the greatest dictator of the ages, 
and it is likely to be dominated by some one individual 
who may swell into the proportions of an imperial 
despot, and, by his inquisitions and machinations, be¬ 
come a disturber of the peace and fill the world with 
a malign influence that will not tend to the welfare 
and happiness of humanity, but in its way be as fatal 
as the poisonous gases introduced into the war that 
has just closed. 

Then, in the end, the council and the league them¬ 
selves may gain such centrifugal force that each will 
fly apart and not only startle but wreck the political 
world. Are people so innocent as not to see that the 
league is loaded and that there may be an explosion? 

What is possible has been demonstrated by what 
has transpired at the Peace Table, which, at least, has 
been such in name, but, if intimations and assertions 
from various sources are half true, has not been so 
peaceful as may have imagined. 

There the imposing Peace Conference, which was 
supposed to be open to the view and hearing of the 
public, withdrew from open view and hearing, and 
secluded itself in secrecy, and, in impenetrable privacy, 
proceeded to dissect the earth, and to hand out slices, 
or small pieces, to the submissive nations, while from 
within the Conference the scenes and sounds were not 
quite those of a love-feast. 


198 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


Then it appears that the work passed from the 
larger body and the “Big Four,” the dignified title 
given by the outsiders to the representatives of Great 
Britain, France, Italy and the United States, under¬ 
took to do the work and then it diminished to three 
or two, and, it has been asserted, that even then there 
was not perfect concord in that little body, though 
secret decisions were secretly reached. 

Everything has not yet been made perfectly clear, 
but enough has been revealed to show that there has 
been not only bitterness on the part of the nations 
outside the secret conclave, but that animosities have 
sprung up between the four dominating nations or 
individuals, and the amity and affection that existed 
between them during the war, when they were ready to 
die, and many did die, for each other, have been 
chilled, and much of the warm and sincere friendship 
has disappeared or been suppressed. 

What is more than that, within the four nations 
themselves there have been ominous mutterings that 
indicate that from the Peace Conference there have 
gone forth ideas and influences that may result in 
political upheavals in European countries that will 
not be for the better, and that through the Peace 
Conference the standing of the United States with the 
other nations or peoples has not been improved, so 
that some day America may wish the United States 
had not been at the Peace Table at all, but had left the 
settlement of the affairs of the old world for adjust¬ 
ment by the European powers themselves. 

However that may be the differences at the Peace 
Conference suggest that likewise serious difficulties 
might, in a similar way, spring up within a League 
of Nations, and when that comes the United States 
Government better not be there. How do we know 
that the league council would do any better than, or as 
well as, the Peace Conference? 


ALTERNATIVES 


199 


One of the worst things that has come out of 
the Peace Conference is the so-called League of Na¬ 
tions, the formation of which was not strictly the 
work of peace commissioners, was never ordered by 
the people of the United States, and which the United 
States, so far, has not accepted, and ought never to 
accept. 

No power has a right to force it upon the United 
States, and the United States for her own safety, and 
the good of the world, should absolutely reject it, no 
matter by whom it may be favored. 

As far as the League of Nations is concerned, it 
can have no existence for the United States, until the 
United States Senate has confirmed it, and to that as 
true Americans, for reasons given and to be given, the 
Senators never should agree So far the proposed 
league is not an entity, and does not exist, and it should 
not be spoken of as an actual fact, or a thing already 
done. 

What can the United States do for the league if 
it enters into this combination and subordinates itself 
to its direction? 

It can, and must, hold itself subject to the direc¬ 
tion of another power. It would be expected to compel 
its soldiers and sailors to go to the uttermost parts of 
the earth and for projects we might not approve, and 
si mply because of the decree of this other power called 
the league. We can be the banker and paying teller 
of these nations until our own finances are crippled. 
For others we can be the policeman of the world, pac¬ 
ing the beats in distant parts of the world, in heat 
and cold, because some over-power, called the league, 
says so. We must bear the brunt of the world-enmity 
that may be evoked, intentionally or unintentionally, 
by the various member-nations in the league. 

This is what the league can do with the United 
States if it undertakes this gambler's risk, by going 


200 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


into this League of Nations, and everybody knows that 
gambling is outlawed in this land. 

On the other hand, ask: How much can the United 
States do for the world if it does not enter this binding 
league? 

In brief the answer is: The United States can do 
just as much, and much more for the world, by staying 
out of the League of Nations, because it has the same 
resources, can manage its own affairs, and preserves 
its liberty to act according to its own judgment, and 
not at the dictation of another power, and doing it 
freely it would be done with greater energy and en¬ 
thusiasm, and, hence, more successfully. No, the 
American soldiers, marines, and sailors will not be 
equal to those of the recent war, if they are ever 
compelled to go to the distant parts of the earth to 
fight under the orders of a power like the league. 
They may fight mechanically but never with the in¬ 
telligence and spirit that always has belonged to the 
American soldier, fighting under the direction of the 
independent United States of America. In addition 
the people will not with the same self-sacrificing spirit 
pay the taxes to carry on league wars, for there can 
be no real patriotism in America for a league govern¬ 
ment that has absorbed the sovereignty of the United 
States. 

How much can the United States do for the world 
by not going into the league ? 

Its action in the late war shows what it can do 
when occasion requires, and that without being in¬ 
volved in any League of Nations. 

But it did what it did freely without being in any 
league which obligated it. Having the same freedom 
it can do similar things whenever the occasion arises, 
and ought to do them according to its own free judg¬ 
ment and not at the dictation of any league or any 
other outside power. That is the American idea. 


ALTERNATIVES 


201 


To help the world the United States does not need 
to be in any permanent League of Nations, but does 
need to preserve its absolute national independence. 

The whole cry raised by some good people for the 
league proceeds on the assumption that there is no 
other way to help the world, but, as has been shown, 
there are other ways, and the United States can stand 
for righteousness and peace in the world, and help to 
enforce them, without binding itself in such a league 
of the world. 

It was independent, we repeat, before the late 
war, but it nevertheless went into the war for the 
right, and, if need be, it can do it again. It does not 
need to handicap itself in a league where the smallest 
nation could neutralize the vote of the great United 
States. 

If the United States remains independent it can 
be the arbiter of the world and hold the balance of 
power for the good of the world. 

With its present military reputation, and demon¬ 
strated strength, all the nations will treat it with great 
respect, and, if it keeps prepared for every emergency, 
its mere intimation that it will actively forbid a nation 
to enter upon an unjust war, would preserve the peace. 
We cannot think of a nation that would attack another 
nation if it knew the United States would intervene 
and with force of arms defend the attacked nation. 

If they wish to do so, let the “Allies” form a regu¬ 
lar alliance to see that the terms of the Peace Treaty 
are met, and the United States of America will not 
forget those for whom her soldiers and sailors have 
fought and died, but let the United States be absolutely 
free to stand by and aid the right side and the right¬ 
eous cause according to her own judgment and her own 
conscience when the right time comes. 

The United States did that when it was entirely 
free from any league and did so without losing any 


202 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


degree of its national sovereignty, and, in the same 
way, it can do the same thing again, and, if necessary, 
it will, but it must be done of its own free will, and 
not under any power other than the power which is 
its own. In addition, we repeat, the American soldier 
always fights for his own country in the battles of his 
own country, and can never fight with the same spirit 
under the dictation of any government other than that 
of his own nation. He will not fight as a mercenary 
under another power. 

With the idea of war before Europe a square 
military alliance of the western nations would be better 
than such a League of Nations which proposes to rule 
the world, not merely in military matters, but gen¬ 
erally, and in many other things already specified and 
announced to the world. The alliance would have one 
specific thing in view which everybody would under¬ 
stand, but the league has a maze of many things, some 
definite, and some indefinite, that would keep the 
world wondering as the league forged and fastened 
new shackles on the nations, and a bewildered world 
in confusion would march into disaster. 

With the background of the late war there should 
be eternal friendship between the United States and 
the “Allies,” but an entente, or understanding, would 
be better than a binding alliance, for the word of 
honor, or the manifest friendship, of the United States, 
would be as good as her bond, and friendship to be 
true and spontaneous must be free, and the United 
States must be free to become friendly to other nations 
anywhere in the world. 

Again, in view of specific dangers, there might 
be an undestanding that would not affect the sover¬ 
eignty of the United States as would the definite, in¬ 
definite, and lasting obligations of membership in the 
League of Nations, for an alliance woud be dealing 
directly with the nations themselves, and not with an 


ALTERNATIVES 


203 


invented and manufactured super-government over the 
nations and controlled by a few men. 

Then if it is best that nations shall have some sort 
of association, but rejecting the over-government 
called “The League of Nations'" which carries so many 
evils in its train, there is another alternative, namely, 
the Peace Conference of the Hague, which never has 
been abrogated. 

This has a different mechanism from the League 
of Nations. It is more voluntary in its operations and 
yet has been effective in a large number of things. In 
it representatives of the nations can come together in 
association, compare views, and reach world decisions, 
and that without meddling in the little affairs of the 
nations, and without undertaking to command any 
government or detract from its independence. 

The world knows something about the Hague 
Peace Conference in operation but it knows nothing 
about this untested League of Nations. 

If the nations want some form of nation-associa¬ 
tion, let them turn to the Hague Conference and its 
already provided Peace Palace and consider what 
exists. Let them utilize and develop this arrangement 
which has never been done away with, and there may 
be found a plan that does not destroy national sover¬ 
eignty, but which brings the nations together, and 
which has already attained a good degree of effective¬ 
ness. 

Instead of the League of Nations there are many 
good alternatives from which a selection may be made, 
and something better can be found than the so-called 
League of Nations. 

Other alternatives may be perceived, and there 
may be helpful conferences between the nations for 
study, for comparison of views, and. for mutual and 
formulated suggestion, but there should be no associa- 


204 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


tion of the nations that gives them governmental 
authority over the United States. 

The United States of America may have such 
friendly association with the nations, but it must not 
have any permanent alliance with any foreign country, 
and must not enter into any association where a nation, 
or a number of nations, could direct or control the 
United States in any sense or any degree. The chief 
feature about the League of Nations is that it is a 
government. One who cannot see that must be men¬ 
tally blind, or blinded by prejudice or misrepresen¬ 
tation. 

Because it is a government the United States 
cannot go into it, or under it, without losing its inde¬ 
pendence, and that it should not do. It is not for the 
United States to rule the world or to be ruled by the 
world, but to stand in its independence as from the be¬ 
ginning, the great and independent United States of 
America, the upright example among the nations and 
the friend of the world. Thus standing it can be the 
helper and great arbiter of humanity, with an influence 
for good that the League of Nations never can equal 
or even approach. 


XIV 


EUROPEAN OPINION OF THE LEAGUE 

It is a great mistake to think that the people and 
governments were very anxious to have and enter the 
League of Nations, though some communications from 
Europe to America during the sitting of the Peace 
Conference were calculated to make that impression. 

In explanation of that it will be well to remember 
that the cables and the wireless were controlled and 
that there was a general and quite severe government 
censorship, and, hence, in both Europe and America, 
there were many complaints that it was difficult to 
ascertain what was going on at the Peace Conference 
and just how, at a given moment, the operations were 
being carried on. 

Some of the reports seemed to imply that there 
was great eagerness on the part of the leading nations 
to have the league constructed, but on the other hand 
it was asserted that Britain and France were far from 
being anxious for such an arrangement, and that they 
had to be won over, or brought over, by President 
Wilson. 

Now it is known, and became known in the early 
period of the Peace Conference, that Premier Clem- 
enceau, of France, was decicedly opposed to the League 
of Nations, and demanded the creation of a balance 
of power, and with that all the way along, he asked for 
certain territorial concessions up to the River Rhine, 
which should be the geographical and topographical 
barrier against possible aggressions on the part of 
Germany. 

That Europe, and even Paris have not had full 
faith in the proposed League of Nations has been 
manifested in the newspapers of the time, and, par¬ 
ticularly since, the so-called adoption of the league in 
Paris. 


206 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


Thus a French paper, the Echo de Paris , describ¬ 
ing the meeting of the Peace Conference at which the 
covenant of the League of Nations was adopted, says: 

“There was no debate, no vote, no noise; we were 
in the chamber of a corpse, for it is fair to affirm that 
the League of Nations was dead before being born, ,, 
and, after scathingly criticizing what the writer re¬ 
gards as the contradictions of the covenants, the writer 
proceeds to say: “The conference is a masterpiece of 
conspiracy formed by a desire to create a popular illu¬ 
sion of electoral value, a desire to give legal expression 
to an egotistical interest and a desire, equally ardent 
among the Americans and British, to escape conti¬ 
nental responsibility too deary defined.” 

Further light is thrown upon the situation by the 
Matin, which says: “By oscillating between two poli¬ 
cies, namely the conciliation preached by Wilson and 
the safeguards demanded by the European nations, 
they have reached an arrangement which accords with 
neither thesis. The hurry and scurry of the confer¬ 
ences latest labors would be laughable were it not 
lamentable.” 

However, though the French journalists may 
think, or even hope, that the League of Nations is dead, 
Americans cannot afford to be thrown off their guard, 
for those who helped to frame the covenant, and those 
who want the league are not dead, and they will put 
forth every possible effort to have the form of the 
league accepted and then have it galvanized into action 
even if it is only mechanical, and such persons will 
endeavor to make the departments function as though 
there was real vitality. Dead or alive it should not be 
imposed upon the United States by any means or in 

y. 



One of the most significant things, however, 


occurred in the British House of Commons on the third 
of July, 1919, when the Prime Minister David Lloyd 


EUROPEAN OPINION OF LEAGUE 207 


George, addressed the Commons just after his return 
from the signing the Peace Treaty with Germany at 
Versailles. 

Of this the Associated Press report said: 

“There was a significant passage when the 
premier first mentioned the League of Nations. Many 
of the members cheered, but, seemingly, nearly an 
equal number burst into laughter. 

“ T beg of you to try it. I beg of you to take it 
seriously/ the premier protested. 

“Proceeding, he declared: Tf it saved only one 
generation from the horrors of war, it would be a great 
achievement/ 

“One member shouted: 'Nobody wants it/ ” And 
the correspondent of the New York Tribune said: “The 
house rocked with laughter.” 

That is largely British opinion—“Nobody wants 
it,” and it will be observed that the prime minister’s 
manner was almost apologetic, and his plea was half¬ 
hearted, and it is perfectly plain that Clemenceau of 
France had less faith in the league than Lloyd George 
of England. 

America seems to have been in a great measure 
deceived as to European enthusiasm for the League of 
Nations, and now it is time that Americans should open 
their eyes and take notice. 

Similar feeling exists in the French Parliament, 
as Mr. Lawrence Hills wrote from Paris, since the 
return of President Wilson to the United States, that 
the “Discussion of the treaty in the French Parliament 
so far has brought out much criticism, not only of the 
covenant of the League of Nations, but also of the 
terms of Peace. Yet it is admitted that action by Par¬ 
liament will be perfunctory, that body, unlike the 
American Senate, having no power to change the 
terms. This is the basis of the criticism of the time 
being consumed in discussion. 




208 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


“It has served, however, to reveal that there is 
much dissatisfaction in regard to the league, the cove¬ 
nant being regarded as a mere shadow. There is also 
much objection to the six votes of Great Britain 
against the one of France, the point being made in this 
discussion that France also has many colonies. The 
view is expressed repeatedly that the British shaped 
the league as they wanted it. 

“The special committee in regard to the military 
clauses attacked these yesterday, contending that they 
left Germany with a nucleus with which to form 
another great army and that they did not mean dis¬ 
armament. The report described the treaty as one of 
war, not of peace. M. Barthou, replying to these 
criticisms, laid special stress upon the Franco-Amer- 
ican-British alliance, pointing out that it was a guar¬ 
antee against a war like that which is just over, as both 
America and Great Britain had armies today such as 
they did not have five years ago.” 

So the French paper, La Liberte, points out that 
the league covenant evidently is an encumbrance to the 
treaty, and is not efficacious. 

But the most positive proof of lack of confidence 
in the League of Nations is in the pact made by the 
representative of the United States, and the represen¬ 
tative of Great Britain, each with France to come to 
the immediate defense of France if unjustly attacked 
by Germany, or, in other words, if Germany made an 
unprovoked attack on France. 

Nothing more clearly shows lack of faith in the 
league and its defensive or protective power. 

No wonder that the London Spectator has said: 

“It is extremely difficult to write in a spirit that 
will be both just and helpful about the final text of the 
covenant creating the League of Nations. Let us say 
at once that the scheme seems to us to be heavily 
charged with proposals that spell disappointment and 


EUROPEAN OPINION OF LEAGUE 209 


disillusionment,” and having discussed it at length, the 
editor continues by saying: “We are conscious as we 
look back upon this survey of difficulties and defects 
that it is a gloomy one—gloomier than we had antici¬ 
pated when we began to write,” and one question the 
editor asks is: “How will the league be able to prevent 
wars if a unanimous vote is required?” 

The Saturday Review , of England, refers to the 
presumed purpose of the league as “a quite impossible 
aim,” and agrees with a correspondent, who says: 

“It is unfortunate that the strict and most care¬ 
fully planned censorship of the cables has prevented 
any free interchange of ideas and criticism between 
England, France, and the United States regarding the 
proposed league.” 

The correspondent Mr. Paul Scott Mower, says 
that the American Peace Delegation go home “sadder 
and wiser men,” and that “There is not one who feels 
other than disillusioned. . . . They came to Europe ex¬ 
pecting to apply liberal principles and what is gen¬ 
erally known as idealism. They go home admitting 
frankly that these principles simply cannot be applied 
to the world in its present condition.” Then he says: 
“The axioms of international politics which have per¬ 
haps made the strongest impression on our represen¬ 
tatives are the following: 

“No nation will voluntarily act against what it 
considers its own best interests. 

“In affairs of State material interests will take 
precedence over moral interests, although the latter 
are not negligible. 

“The rights of small or weak nations are only 
such as large and powerful nations may accord them. 

“No powerful nation is at present willing to cede 
the least jot of its full sovereignty. 

“Therefore, no League of Nations with super-na¬ 
tional authority is now possible. 


210 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


“In the present state of civilization no nation can 
afford to entrust its safety to the good will of others. 
If strong it must show readiness to defend itself; if 
weak, it must seek strong protectors. 

“Changes in the present relations between the na¬ 
tions can only come about slowly and as a natural 
growth.” 

Evidently the more intelligent in Europe are not 
satisfied with the so-called League of Nations. 


XV 


AN AMERICAN VIEW 

The United States of America since its birth has 
steadily grown in strength, prosperity, and influence, 
until the world generally regards this nation as the 
greatest and best of the nations, and in it has the 
greatest confidence. 

This physical, mental, and character development 
and prosperity have come from its independent exis¬ 
tence and the working of moral and certain political 
principles, including attendance to her own affairs and 
avoidance of permanent alliances. 

In view of this long history and steady advance¬ 
ment, anything that proposes a radical change in the 
principles and practices that have made the United 
States of America great and prosperous, and given it 
the relatively high moral and political standing which 
it has long possessed, should, by an American, be 
scanned with most sensitive suspicion. 

Any power or combination, therefore, that seeks 
in any way to control the United States of America so 
as to destroy its political independence, in any sense or 
in any degree, should be instantly and eternally re¬ 
jected, and any proposition that involves this should 
promptly be spurned, and that with contempt. 

The so-called League of Nations implies such a 
proposition and involves the destruction of independ¬ 
ence and the loss of national sovereignty, and, there¬ 
fore, should by every true American be immediately 
and emphatically refused. 

There may be such a thing as an association of 
nations for consultation and mutual recommendations, 
but this is not the nature of the League of Nations 
which is a government over the nations that enter into 
it, so that the nation that enters it loses its sovereignty, 



212 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


and, hence, the independent United States should not 
enter therein. 

It may be said that the league may be changed, but, 
no matter what changes may be made in it, as long as 
it retains the governing feature its real character is 
not affected. Article X may be removed, and the Mon¬ 
roe Doctrine may be better guarded, and yet there will 
remain many things that make the nation in the league 
a subject nation under the government of the league, 
and as long as these things exist, and the governing 
element persists, the member nation has lost its sover¬ 
eignty. That is the essential feature of the League of 
Nations. It is an over-government with the nations 
subject to it, and the United States must keep out, or 
lose its political independence, no matter what reser¬ 
vations are made. 

Some may say: Go in and experiment and if you 
do not like it then withdraw. That is like telling a man 
to take poison as an experiment. It is not only dan¬ 
gerous but absurdly foolish. Why should a nation go 
in at all when it is not satisfied with the scheme and 
perceives dangers ? Then it will not be easy to get out. 
The rat may easily get into the trap but finds it impos¬ 
sible to get out. What sense is there in going into a 
thing that is positvely dangerous and thus encouraging 
others to enter, and what sense is there in incurring the 
tremendous expense that is inevitable? The right 
course is to refuse to enter any international association 
until sure that it is perfectly safe and wise and that it 
will not govern you. 

Rut, says one, the United States should bear the 
world’s burdens, but it is not true that the United 
States is to bear all the world’s burdens. If the United 
States attempts to do what is involved in this cant 
about bearing burdens, the world will soon bear an 
exhausted United States to its burial. 


AN AMERICAN VIEW 


213 


The United States can bear world-burdens. It has 
done so, and that without being in such an organiza¬ 
tion as the League of Nations. 

Many in the world consider the wealth and 
strength of the United States as legitimate spoils for 
them to take and use according to their pleasure, but 
the United States must be the judge as to when and 
how it will use its money and its men. The league will 
not bear the world's burdens, and the United States 
should not want any league to direct it in its charity 
or help. It can bear the burdens it wants to bear but 
not those it is commanded to bear by a power that 
claims superior command. 

But some say we must sacrifice something. If 
that be true, it does not follow that the United States 
must sacrifice itself for the League of Nations with 
which some propose to govern the world, including the 
United States. 

“We must sacrifice” is another insincere goody- 
goody observation, which means the people of a nation 
must sacrifice something, and that something is the 
nation itself, by giving up its sovereignty and letting 
the so-called League of Nations rule over it. For what? 
The United States can rule itself better than any other 
power can, and it must not let any other earthly power 
rule over it. That is the thing an American patriot 
must not do, and will not do, if he understands the 
situation. Giving up independence is giving up vitality 
and life, and he is a traitor to his country who know¬ 
ingly sacrifices his nation by sacrificing its indepen¬ 
dence. But why sacrifice the nation for the sake of a 
so-called League of Nations, and make it a supreme 
ruler of the world? 

The nation has made sacrifices that have helped the 
world, and that without being in the so-called League 
of Nations, and it always must be free to do so accord¬ 
ing to its own judgment. 


214 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


But says one, now that the United States has done 
so much she must not withdraw from the rest of the 
world. Well, who said the United States was going to 
withdraw from the world? She was not withdrawing 
from the world when she went into the recent and great 
world war, and then the League of Nations had no 
existence whatever. She does not need to be in the 
so-called League of Nations to do her duty, and it is 
absurd to assume that the United States would be with¬ 
drawn from interest in the world because she would 
not go into a so-called League of Nations, and sink her 
sovereignty by being subject to it, that is to say, to be 
ruled over and overruled by a little coterie of five, or 
four, or three, or two men, and, possibly after awhile 
one man. If there are any Americans who want that, 
what kind of Americans are they? 

It is not a question as to the inventor of the 
scheme. The inventor of this league may not have seen 
how the machine would work after it got agoing. Per¬ 
haps he was not of those who see the end from the 
beginning, and so did not perceive to what it would 
lead. Sometimes men are blown up by their own in¬ 
fernal machines, but they did not expect it. 

It is not a question of who wanted, or who now 
want the League of Nations, or what they sincerely 
thought it would do. The real question is what is the 
thing, how will it work, and what is it likely to do? Or 
what mischief may it possibly do? 

Those who are doubtful about the league ought not 
to favor going into it. One thing is certain, we are 
safe when we are not in it. 

The safe thing is for the. United States to stay out 
of the League of Nations, preserve its independence, 
and as an independent nation help the world according 
to its ability,? and, as a sovereign state, recognizing no 
superior, but using its own free judgment as to how, 
and when, and to what extent it shall act. 


AN AMERICAN VIEW 


215 


This does not mean isolation or indifference to the 
needs of humanity, but it means that the United States 
is acting of its own free volition, and when it helps the 
world, the world will know that it is the United States 
that is helping, and not a league that controls and 
drains the United States, but takes the credit to itself. 

The United States did not go into the war to make 
the League of Nations. The country was not thinking 
about that, and it would be a strange reward if this 
creature was to swallow the sovereignty of the United 
States that did so much for liberty and the self-govern¬ 
ment of peoples. 

The league is not a homogeneous body, but one 
with many diverse and irreconcilable elements. It is a 
league with conflicting ideas and ideals. Many in it 
are not democratic, but monarchical and autocratic 
governments, and the league itself is imperialistic. It 
is a league of antagonistic religions—Christian, pagan, 
and Mohammedan, and the vote of the heathen or Mo¬ 
hammedan, can defeat or neutralize the vote of the 
Christian. 

There are counted in it nations that are unde¬ 
veloped, ignorant, and on a far lower social and political 
grade than the United States of America, and the vote 
of any one of them can counteract the vote of the 
United States, and these are more likely to drag the 
United States down than for this country in the 
league to left them up. To blend the United States with 
inferior nations having different ideas and ideals, is to 
depress and submerge the United States in such a 
league, for the United States may be subject to their 
votes. They are regarded as equals but it is not 
equitable. 

There are evidences that the intention is to use the 
league to bear the blunders of the Peace Conference. 
This is seen in the fact that the conference referred so 
many things to the league that had no existence, though 


216 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


the Peace Conference should have settled them and 
settled them right. 

The consensus of opinion seems to show that de¬ 
cisions of the Peace Conference are not satisfactory and 
that a considerable number of them will cause trouble 
and result in wars. To turn the cases over to the 
league seems to be using the so-called League of Na¬ 
tions as a convenience to carry the defects and failures 
of the peace commission and to perpetuate the power of 
the peace commission. The league, however, was not 
needed to enforce the peace terms for the Conference 
could have done that through its own commissions and 
the allied armies at command. It looks like a scheme to 
bring the league into existence and give it something to 
do as a reason for its being. 

Notwithstanding the high moral declarations with 
which we were so often regaled and lulled into the 
repose of undisturbed confidence, it now appears that 
at the Peace Conference there was possibly as much 
bargaining and sharp and selfish trading, as in the case 
of similar conferences in bygone generations, which 
were severely criticised by historians and others. The 
reports from Paris now and then gave intimations and 
more than intimations, but now there are recognized 
facts. 

It was said that trades were made in the form of 
concessions to powers for something that were counted 
as equivalents, and, for example that a great slice of 
territory would be given to one nation and that the 
receiving nation would give something, possibly not so 
material, in return. 

Many were shocked by the Peace Conference giv¬ 
ing the province of Shantung, in China, with its 
important port, and say thirty-six millions of Chinese 
inhabitants to Japan. People said it was part of China, 
one of the Allies, and the great friend of the United 
States in Asia. They said it belonged to China and they 


AN AMERICAN VIEW 


217 


wondered why some one of the American commis¬ 
sioners had not prevented this great wrong. 

Some have endeavored to make explanations but 
the prevailing judgment, and assertion, is that it was 
a trade to get Japan to do something. If so, then 
Japan was bought and somebody bought her. Why 
did not Japan rise up against it? Why did not the 
United States Commission? 

The outcome of it all is that the League of Nations 
is a tainted league. That its passage was secured by 
purchase. That China’s most valuable province and 
from thirty-six to forty millions of Chinese, without 
any chance for “self-determination” were passed over 
to the Japanese Empire to get Japan’s vote for the 
League of Nations, and many now wonder how many 
others were bought for the same purpose. But the 
heavenly and immaculate League of Nations now stands 
as having existence through purchase or a system of 
worldly trading involving an unspeakable wrong to a 
great nation and a moral wrong to humanity, and the 
outrage would be doubled if the United States were 
to justify the wrong by adopting and going into this 
tainted League of Nations. 

Then if the United States enters the league, and 
the Chinese ever try to release their kindred and to take 
back their own land, the League of Nations would com¬ 
pel the American forces to protect this territory for 
Japan and to fight the faithful Chinese. 

But says one, is this statement a fact? Well, an 
administration Senator, Senator Williams, of Missis¬ 
sippi, is reported as having said in the Senate on the 
Fifteenth day of July, 1919, on this very point, that 
“We had to agree to it to obtain Japan’s signature to 
the treaty and the League of Nations’ covenant.” 

Then on the Eighteenth of July came the public 
dispatch from Washington, saying, “The President 
will not attempt to defend the Shantung arrangement 


218 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


on any other ground than that it was a necessary com¬ 
promise to bring Japan inside the treaty and the 
League of Nations.” 

This is part of the evidence that at the Peace Con¬ 
ference, support for the proposed League of Nations 
was bought, and at the sacrifice of friendly China, the 
support of Japan was secured. It was a corrupt trade. 

How much more trading was done? How many 
more votes for the league were sold and bought? It 
is not now necessary to say, but people will ask ques¬ 
tions and surmise. What did Great Britain get? Well, 
almost everything, but we do not think she got the 
everything simply to support the league. What did 
France get ? It is known she got the formal assurance 
of a military alliance with the United States, providing 
that the league approved the treaty, thus putting the 
league above the United States. What did Italy get? 
Well, she did not get the Italian town called Fiume. 
What did the United States get? Nothing, but a loss 
of confidence of the peoples, and the offer of a tainted 
league of some of the nations, a proposition carried 
by a bought support, or what the politicians would call 
a seemingly corrupt bargain. One may ask, Where was 
the spontaneous and universal demand for the League 
of Nations? 

But a plaintive cry arises: “Dare we reject it 
and break the heart of the world?" Who says it will 
break the heart of the world if the United States does 
not adopt the League of Nations? How does any one 
know that? That may be poetical, but is it a fact? 

Hundreds of millions probably have never heard of 
the League of Nations and know nothing about it, and 
there are in Europe, we are told on very good authority, 
very many who do not want the league, while in the 
United States, doubtless, there are millions who are 
against it. Why should any American desire to put 


AN AMERICAN VIEW 


219 


this noble nation under the control of such a League 
of Nations? 

The league itself may break the heart of the world 
when its imperialistic machinery moves and grinds, 
and, if the United States becomes so fatuous as to go 
into the league, the hearts of hundreds of thousands 
of American mothers will break as their sons are 
dragged into the army and sent to the uttermost parts 
of the earth to fight the battles of the League of 
Nations. 

The League of Nations is destructive of nation¬ 
ality, and especially of American nationality, and if the 
American people get to understand what the league is, 
in all its bearings, they will make short work with the 
League of Nations that seeks to govern the world and 
destroy the sovereignty of the United States of 
America. 

The so-called League of Nations is a political gov¬ 
ernment to govern the world. The nation that enters 
will be ruled by it. Then the nations would cease to 
be “powers,” the power of the world would be in the 
league, and the power of the league would be in the 
hands of four or five men, the making of the world’s 
greatest despotism. The United States of America 
would lose its independence by going into it. 

The present duty is to reject the league and save 
the Nation. 


220 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


APPENDIX 


THE 

REVISED LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT 

Washington, April 28, 1919. 

The following is the text of the covenant of the League of 
Nations as drafted for presentation to the plenary session of 
the Peace Conference and made public here: 

In order to promote international co-operation and to 
achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of 
obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just 
and honorable relations between nations, by the firm establish¬ 
ment of the understandings of international law as to actual 
rule of conduct among governments and by the maintenance of 
justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the 
dealings of organized peoples with one another, the high con¬ 
tracting parties agree to this covenant of the League of Nations. 

[In the original preamble to last sentence read, “Adopt this 
constitution” instead of “Agreed to this covenant.”] 

ARTICLE I 

The original members of the League of Nations shall be 
those of the signatories which are named in the annex to this 
covenant and also such of those other states named in the annex 
as shall accede without reservation to this covenant. Such 
accessions shall be effected by a declaration deposited with the 
secretariat within two months of the coming into force of the 
covenant. Notice thereof shall be sent to all other members of 
the league. 

Any fully self-governing state, dominion or colony not 
named in the annex may become a member of the league if its 
admission is agreed upon by two-thirds of the assembly, provided 
that it shall give effective guarantees of its sincere intention to 
observe its international obligations and shall accept such regu¬ 
lations as may be prescribed by the league in regard to its mili¬ 
tary and naval forces and armaments. 

Any member of the league may, after two years’ notice of 
its intention so to do, withdraw from the league, provided that 
all its international obligations and all its obligations under this 
covenant shall have been fulfilled at the time of its withdrawal. 

[This article is new, embodying, with alterations and addi¬ 
tions, the old Article VII. It provides more specifically the 
methed of admitting new members and adds the entirely new 
paragraph providing for withdrawal from the league. No men¬ 
tion of withdrawal was made in the original document .] 



APPENDIX 


221 


ARTICLE II 

The action of the league under this covenant shall be 
effected through the instrumentality of an assembly and of a 
council, with a permanent secretariat. 

[Originally this was a part of Article I. It gives the name 
assembly to the gathering of representatives of the members of 
the league , formerly referred to merely as “the body of 
delegates .”] 

ARTICLE III 

The assembly shall consist of representatives of the mem¬ 
bers of the league. 

The assembly shall meet at stated intervals and from time 
to time as occasion may require, at the seat of the league, or 
such other place as may be decided upon. 

The assembly may deal at its meeting with any matter 
within the sphere of action of the league or affecting the peace 
of the world. 

At meetings of the assembly, each member of the league 
shall have one vote, and may have not more than three repre¬ 
sentatives. 

[This embodies parts of the original Article I and II and III 
with only minor changes. It refers to “members of the league” 
where the term “high contracting parties” originally was used , 
and this change is followed throughout the revised draft.'] 

ARTICLE IV 

The council shall consist of representatives of the United 
States of America, of the British Empire, of France, of Italy 
and of Japan, together with representatives of four other mem¬ 
bers of the league. These four members of the league shall be 
selected by the assembly from time to time in its discretion. 
Until the appointment of the representatives of the four mem¬ 
bers of the league first selected by the assembly, representatives 
of- shall be members of the council. 

[*At the Peace Conference, on the 28th of April, 1919, Presi¬ 
dent Wilson moved “that until such time as the Assembly shall 
have selected the first four members of the league to be repre¬ 
sented on the council in accordance with Article IV of the 
covenant, representatives of Belgium, Brazil, Greece, and Spain 
shall be members” and that was adopted.] 

With the approval of the majority of the assembly, the 
council may name additional members of the league whose 
representatives shall always be members of the council; the 
council with like approval may increase the number of members 
of the league to be selected by the assembly for representation 
on the council. 

The council shall meet from time to time as occasion may 
require, and at least once a year, at the seat of the league, or at 
such other place as may be decided upon. 

The council may deal at its meetings with any matter within 
the sphere of action of the league or affecting the peace of the 
world. 

Any member of the league not represented on the council 
shall be invited to send a representative to sit as a member at 



222 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


any meeting 1 of the council during the consideration of matters 
specially affecting the interests of that member of the league. 

At meetings of the council, each member of the league repre¬ 
sented on the council shall have one vote, and may have not more 
than one representative. 

[This embodies that part of the original Article III, desig¬ 
nating the original members of the council. The paragraph 
providing for increase in the membership of the counci 1 is new.] 

ARTICLE V 

Except where otherwise expressly provided in this covenant, 
or by the terms of the treaty (amended after draft was printed) 
decisions at any meeting of the assembly or of the council shall 
require the agreement of all the members of the league repre¬ 
sented at the meeting. 

All matters of procedure at meetings of the assembly or the 
council, the appointment of committees to investigate particular 
matters, shall be regulated by the assembly or by the council, 
and may be decided by a majority of the members of the league 
represented at the meeting. 

The first meeting of the assembly and the first meeting at 
the council shall be summoned by the President of the United 
States of America. 

[The first paragraph requiring unanimous agreement in 
both assembly and council except where otherwise provided is 
new. The other two paragraphs originally were included in 
Article IV.] 

ARTICLE VI 

The permanent secretariat shall be established at the seat 
of the league. The secretariat shall comprise a secretariat gen¬ 
eral and such secretaries and staff as may be required. 

The first secretary general shall be the person named in the 
annex; thereafter the secretary general shall be appointed by 
the council with the approval of the majority of the assembly. 

The secretaries and the staff of the secretariat shall be 
appointed by the secretary general with the approval of the 
council. 

The secretary general shall act in that capacity at all meet¬ 
ings of the assembly and of the council. 

The expenses of the secretariat shall be borne by the mem¬ 
bers of the league in accordance with the apportionment of the 
expenses of the international bureau of the Universal Postal 
Union. 

[This replaces the original Article V. In the original the 
appointment of the first secretary general was left to the council , 
and approval of the majority of the assembly was not required 
for subsequent appointments.] 

ARTICLE VII 

The seat of the league is established at Geneva. 

The council may at any time decide that the seat of the 
league shall be established elsewhere. 

All positions under or in connection with the league, includ¬ 
ing the secretariat, shall be open equally to men and women. 


APPENDIX 


223 


Representatives of the members of the league and officials 
of the league when engaged on the business of the league shall 
enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities. 

The buildings and other property occupied by the league or 
its officials or by representatives attending its meetings shall 
be inviolable. 

[Embodying parts of the old Articles V and VI. This 
article names Geneva instead of leaving the seat of the league 
to be chosen later , and adds the provision for changing the seat 
in the future. The paragraph opening positions to women 
equally with men is new.] 

ARTICLE VIII 

The members of the league recognize that the maintenance 
of a peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the 
lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforce¬ 
ment by common action of international obligations. 

The council, taking account of the geographical situation 
and circumstances of each state, shall formulate plans for such 
reduction for the consideration and action of the several govern¬ 
ments. 

Such plans shall be subject to reconsideration and revision 
at least every ten years. 

After these plans shall have been adopted by the several 
governments limits of armaments therein fixed shall not be 
exceeded without the concurrence of the council. 

The members of the league agree that the manufacture by 
private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open 
to grave objections. The council shall advise how the evil 
effects attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due 
regard being had to the necessitities of those members of the 
league which are not able to manufacture the munitions and 
implements of war necessary for their safety. 

The members of the league undertake to interchange full 
and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their 
military and naval programs and the condition of such of their 
industries as are adaptable to warlike purposes. 

[This covers the ground of the original Atricle VIII, but is 
rewritten to make it clearer that ornament reduction plans must 
be adopted by the nations affected before they become effective .] 

ARTICLE IX 

A permanent commission shall be constituted to advise the 
council on the execution of the provision of Articles I and 
VIII and on military and naval questions generally. 

[Unchanged except for the insertion of the words 
“Article I. ] 

ARTICLE X 

The members of the league undertake to respect and pre¬ 
serve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and 
existing political independence of all members of the league. In 
case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger 
of such aggression, the council shall advise upon the means by 
which this obligation shall be fulfilled. 

[Virtually unchanged .] 



224 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


ARTICLE XI 

Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting 
any of the members of the league or not, is hereby declared a 
matter of concern to the whole league, and the league shall take 
any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard 
the peace of nations. In case any such emergency should arise, 
the secretary general shall, on the request of any member of 
the league, forthwith summon a meeting of the council. 

It is also declared to be the fundamental right of each mem¬ 
ber of the league to bring to the attention of the assembly or of 
the council any circumstance whatever affecting international 
relations which threatens to disturb either the peace or the good 
understanding between nations upon which peace depends. 

[In the original it was provided that the u high contracting 
parties reserve the right to take any action,” etc., where the 
revised draft reads, “The league shall, take any action.”'] 

ARTICLE XII 

The members of the league agree that if there should arise 
between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture they will 
submit the matter either to arbitration or to inquiry by the 
council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three 
months after the award by the arbitrators or the report by the 
council. 

In any case, under this article the award of the arbitrators 
shall be made within a reasonable time, and the report of the 
council shall be made within six months after the submission of 
the dispute. 

[Virtually unchanged except that some provisions of the 
original are eliminated for inclusion in other articles.] 

ARTICLE XIII 

The members of the league agree that whenever any dispute 
shall arise between them which they recognize to be suitable for 
submission to arbitration and which cannot be satisfactorily 
settled by diplomacy, they will submit the whole subject matter 
to arbitration. Disputes as to the interpretation of a treaty, as 
to any question of international law, as to the existence of any 
fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of any 
international obligation, or as to the extent and nature of the 
reparation to be made for any such breach, are declared to be 
among those which are generally suitable for submission to 
arbitration. For the consideration of any such dispute the 
court of arbitration to which the case is referred shall be the 
court agreed upon by the parties to the dispute or stipulated 
in any convention existing between them. 

The members of the league agree that they will carry out 
in full good faith any award that may be rendered and that 
they will not resort to war against a member of the league 
which complies therewith. In the event of any failure to carry 
out such an award the council shall propose what steps should 
be taken to give effect thereto. 

[Only minor changes in language.] 


APPENDIX 


225 


ARTICLE XIV 

The council shall formulate and submit to the members of 
the league for adoption plans for the establishment of a per¬ 
manent court of international justice. The court shall be com¬ 
petent to hear and determine any dispute of an international 
character which the parties thereto submit to it. The court may 
also give an advisory opinion upon any dispute or question re¬ 
ferred to it by the council or by the assembly. 

[Unchanged except for the addition of the last sentence .] 

ARTICLE XV 

If there should arise between members of the league any 
dispute likely to lead to a rupture, which is not submitted to 
arbitration as above, the members of the league agree that they 
will submit the matter to the council. Any party to the dispute 
may effect such submission by giving notice of the existence of 
the dispute to the secretary general, who will make all necessary 
arrangements for a full investigation and consideration thereof. 
For this purpose the parties to the dispute will communicate to 
the secretary general as promptly as possible statements of 
their case, all the relevant facts and papers; the council may 
forthwith direct the publication thereof. 

The council shall endeavor to effect a settlement of any 
dispute, and, if such efforts are successful, a statement shall 
be made public giving such facts and explanations regarding the 
dispute, terms of settlements thereof as the council may deem 
appropriate. If the dispute is not thus settled, the council either 
unanimously or by a majority vote shall make and publish a 
report containing a statement of the facts of the dispute and the 
recommendations which are deemed just and proper in regard 
thereto. 

Any member of the league represented on the council may 
make public a statement of the facts of the dispute and of its 
conclusions regarding the same. 

If a report by the council is unanimously agreed to by the 
members thereof other than the representatives of one or more 
of the parties to the dispute, the members of the league agree 
that they will not go to vrar with any party to the dispute which 
complies with the recommendations of the report. 

If the council fails to reach a report which is unanimously 
agreed to by the members thereof, other than the representa¬ 
tives of one or more of the parties to the dispute, the members 
of the league reserve to themselves the right to take such action 
as they shall consider necessary for the maintenance of right 
and justice. 

If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them 
and is found by th council to arise out of a matter which by 
international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of 
that party, the council shall so report and shall make no recom¬ 
mendation as to its settlement. 

The council may in any case under this article refer the 
dispute to the assembly. The dispute shall be so referred at the 
request of either party to the dispute, provided that such request 
be made within fourteen days after the submission of the dis¬ 
pute to the council. 


226 THE LEAGUE THE NATION'S DANGER 


In any case referred to the assembly all the provisions of 
this article and of Article XII relating to the action and powers 
of the council shall apply to the action and powers of the as¬ 
sembly, provided that a report made by the assembly, if con¬ 
curred in by the representatives of those members of the league 
represented on the council and of a majority of the other mem¬ 
bers of the league, exclusive in each case of the representatives 
of the parties to the dispute, shall have the same force as a 
report by the council concurred in by all the members thereof 
other than the representatives of one or more of the parties to 
the dispute. 

[The paragraph specifically excluding matters of 11 domestic 
jurisdiction” from action by the council is neiv. In the last 
sentence the words “if concurred in by the representatives of 
those members of the league represented on the council, etc., 
have been added .] 

ARTICLE XVI 

Should any member of the league resort to war in disregard 
of its covenants under Articles XII, XIII or XIV, it shall ipso 
facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all 
other members of the league, which hereby undertake imme¬ 
diately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial 
relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their na¬ 
tionals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking state and the 
prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse 
between the nationals of the covenant-breaking state and the 
nationals of any other state, whether a member of the league 
or not. 

It shall be the duty of the council in such case to recom¬ 
mend to the several governments concerned what effective mili¬ 
tary or naval forces the members of the league shall severally 
contribute to the armaments of forces to be used to protect the 
covenants of the league. 

The members of the league agree, further, that they will 
mutually support one another in the financial and economic 
measures which are taken under this article, in order to min¬ 
imize the loss and inconvenience resulting from the above meas¬ 
ures, and that they will mutually support one another in resist¬ 
ing any special measures aimed at one of their number by the 
covenant-breaking member of the league, and that they will take 
the necessary steps to afford passage through their territory to 
the forces of any of the members of the league which are co¬ 
operating to protect the covenants of the league. 

Any member of the league which has violated any covenant 
of the league may be declared to be no longer a member of the 
league by a vote of the council concurred in by the representa¬ 
tives of all the other members of the league represented thereon. 

[Unchanged except for the addition of the last sentence .] 
ARTICLE XVII 

In the event of a dispute between a member of the league 
and a state which is not a member of the league, or between 
states not members of the league, the state or states not mem¬ 
bers of the league shall be invited to accept the obligations of 
membership in the league for the purposes of such dispute, upon 


APPENDIX 


227 


such conditions as the council may deem just. If such invitation 
ac< ? e P ted ’ .^ e Provisions of Article XII to XVI, inclusive, 
shall he applied with such modification as may be deemed neces¬ 
sary by the council. 

Upon such invitation being given, the council shall imme¬ 
diately institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the dis¬ 
pute and recommend such action as may seem best and most 
effectual in the circumstances. 

If a state so invited shall refuse to accept the obligations 
of membership in the league for the purposes of such dispute 
and shall resort to war against a member of the league, the 
provisions of Article XVI shall be applicable as against the 
state taking such action. 

If both parties to the dispute when so invited refuse to 
accept the obligations of membership in the league for the pur¬ 
poses of such dispute, the council may take such measures and 
make such recommendations as will prevent hostilities and will 
result in the settlement of the dispute. 

[ Virtually unchanged.'] 

ARTICLE XVIII 

Every convention or international engagement entered into 
henceforward by any member of the league shall be forthwith 
registered with the secretariat and shall as soon as possible be 
published by it. No such treaty or international engagement 
shall be binding until so registered. 

[Same as original Article XXIII.] 

ARTICLE XIX 

The assembly may from time to time advise the reconsidera¬ 
tion by members of the league of treaties which have become 
inapplicable and the consideration of international conditions 
whose continuance might endanger the peace of the world. 

[Virtually the same as original Article XIV. 

ARTICLE XX 

The members of the league severally agree that this cove¬ 
nant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings 
inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof and 
solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any 
engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof. 

In case members of the league shall, before becoing a mem¬ 
ber of the league, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent 
with the terms of this covenant it shall be the duty of such 
member to take immediate steps to procure its release from 
such obligations. 

[Virtually the same as original Article XXV.] 

ARTICLE XXI 

Nothing in this covenant shall be deemed to affect the 
validity of international engagements such as treaties of arbi¬ 
tration or regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine 
for securing the maintenance of peace. 

[Entirely new.] 


228 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


ARTICLE XXII 

To those colonies and territories which, as a consequence of 
the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the 
states which formerly governed them and which are inhabited 
by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the stren¬ 
uous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the 
principle that the well being and development of such peoples 
form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the 
performance of this trust should be embodied in this covenant. 

The best method of giving practicable effect to this prin¬ 
ciple is that the tutelage of such peoples be intrusted to ad¬ 
vanced nations who, by reason of their resources, their expe¬ 
rience or their geographical position, can best undertake this 
responsibility and who are willing to accept it, and that this 
tutelage should be exercised by them as mandatories on behalf 
of the league. 

The character of the mandate must differ according to the 
stage of the development of the people, the geographical situa¬ 
tion of the territory, its economic condition and other similar 
circumstances. 

Certain communitips formerly belonging to the Turkish em¬ 
pire have reached a stage of development where their existence 
as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject 
to the rendering ot administrative advice and assistance by a 
mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The 
wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration 
in the selection of the mandatory. 

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at 
such a stage that the mandatory must be responsible for the 
administration of the territory under conditions which will 
guarantee freedom of conscience or religion subject only to the 
maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses 
such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic 
and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or mili¬ 
tary and naval bases and of military training of the nations for 
other than police purposes and the defense of territory, and will 
also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of 
other members of the league. 

There are territories, such as Southwest Africa and certain 
of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness 
of their population or their small size or their remoteness from 
the centers of civilization or their geographical contiguity of 
the territory of the mandatory and other circumstances, can be 
best administered under the laws of the mandatory as integral 
portions of its territory subject to the safeguards above men¬ 
tioned in the interests of the indigenous population. In every 
case of mandate the mandatory shall render to the council an 
annual report in reference to the territory committed to its 
charge. The degree of authority, control or administration to 
be exercised by the mandatory shall, if not previously agreed 
upon by the members of the league, be explicitly defined in each 
case by the council. 

A permanent commission shall be constituted to receive and 
examine the annual reports of the mandatories and to advise the 


APPENDIX 


229 


council on all matters relating to the observance of the man- 
dat6s.. 

[This is the original Article XIX, virtually unchanged, ex¬ 
cept for the insertion of the words u and who are willing to 
accept,” in describing nations to be given mandatories .] 


ARTICLE XXIII 

Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of interna¬ 
tional conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon, the 
members of the league (a) will endeavor to secure and maintain 
fair and humane conditions of labor for men, women and chil¬ 
dren, both in their own countries and in all countries to which 
their commercial and industrial relations extend, and for that 
purpose will establish and maintain the necessary international 
organizations; (b) undertake to secure just treatment of the 
native inhabitants of the territories under their control; (c) 
will intrust the league with the general supervision over the 
execution of agreements with regard to the traffic in women 
and children, and the traffic in opium and other dangerous 
drugs; (d) will intrust the league with the general supervision 
of the trade in arms and ammunition with the countries in which 
the control of this traffic is necessary in the common interest; 
(e) will make provision to secure and maintain freedom of com¬ 
munication and of transit and equitable treatment for the com¬ 
merce of all members of the league. In this connection the 
special necessitities of the regions devastated during the war 
of 1914-1918 shall be in mind; (f) will endeavor to take steps 
in matters of international concern for the prevention and 
control of disease. 

[This replaces the original Article XX, and embodies parts 
of the original Article XVIII and XXI. It eliminates a specific 
provision formerly made for a bureau of labor and adds the 
clauses B and C.] 


ARTICLE XXIV 

There shall be placed under the direction of the league all 
international bureaus already established by general treaties if 
the parties to such treaties consent. All such international 
bureaus and all commissions for the regulation of matters of 
international interest hereafter constituted shall be placed under 
the direction of the league. 

In all matters of international interest which are regulated 
by general conventions but which are not placed under the con¬ 
trol of international bureaus or commissions, the secretariat of 
the league shall, subject to the consent of the council and if 
desired by the parties, collect and distribute all relevant infor¬ 
mation and shall render any other assistance which may be 
necessary or desirable. The council may include as part of the 
expenses of the secretariat the expenses of any bureau or com¬ 
mission which is placed under the direction of the league. 

[Same as Article XXII in the original, with the matter 
after the first two sentences added.] 


230 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


ARTICLE XXV 

The members of the league agree to encourage and promote 
the establishment and co-operation of duly authorized voluntary 
national Red Cross organizations having as purposes improve¬ 
ment of health, the prevention of disease and mitigation of suf¬ 
fering throughout the world. 

[.Entirely new .] 

ARTICLE XXVI 

Amendments to this covenant will take effect when ratified 
by the members of the league whose representatives compose 
the council and by a majority of the members of the league 
whose representatives compose the assembly. 

No such amendment shall bind any member of the league 
which signifies its dissent therefrom, but in that case it shall 
cease to be a member of the league. 

[,Same as the original, except that a majority of the league 
instead of three-fourths is required for ratification of amend¬ 
ments, with the last sentence added.) 


ANNEX TO THE COVENANT 

First. Original members of the League of Nations. 

Signatories of the Treaty of Peace. 

United States of America, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, British 
Empire, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, India, 
China, Cuba, Zecho-Slovakia, Ecuador, France, Greece, Guate¬ 
mala, Haiti, Hedjaz, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Nicaragua, 
Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Servia, Siam, 
Uruguay. 

States invited to accede to the covenant. 

Argentine Republic, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Nether¬ 
lands, Norway, Paraguay, Persia, Salvador, Spain, Sweden, 
Switzerland, Venezuela. 

Second. First secretary general of the League of Nations 

[The annex was not published with the original draft of the 
covenant.'] On April 28, 1919, at the Peace Conference, when 
the covenant of the league was agreed to, President Wilson 
moved that “the first Secretary General of the Council shall be 
the Honorable Sir James Eric Drummond,” and this was adopted. 



APPENDIX 


231 


THE CHARTER MEMBERS OF LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


According to the annex to the League of Nations covenant, 
the original members of the league will be: 


United States of America 

Guatemala 

Belgium 

Haiti 

Bolivia 

Hedjaz 

Brazil 

Honduras 

British Empire 

Italy 

Canada 

Japan 

Australia 

Liberia 

South Africa 

Nicaragua 

New South Wales 

Panama 

India 

Peru 

China 

Poland 

Cuba 

Portugal 

Czecho-Slovakia 

Rumania 

Ecuador 

Servia 

France 

Siam 

Greece 

Uruguay 


States invited to accede to the covenant: 


Argentine Republic 

Chile 

Colombia 

Denmark 

Netherlands 

Norway 

Paraguay 


Persia 

Salvador 

Spain 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

Venezuala 























. 





















































































































INDEX 


A 

Address, Farewell, 103. 
Algeciras Conference, 61. 
Alliance, 189, 193, 201. 
Alliance, Holy, 150. 

Alliances, 177, 211. 

Alliances, Foreign, 102. 
Alliances, Foreign, President 
Wilson Against, 109. 
Alternatives, 192-204. 
Amendments to League Consti¬ 
tution, 26, 27, 28. 
Amendments to League Con¬ 
stitution, Demanded, 28-46. 
America, Arbiter, 204. 
America, First, 158. 

America, United States of, 7. 
America, United States of, 
Gains Nothing, 148. 
America, United States of, 
Loses All, 140. 

Americanism, 3, 140. 

American Commonwealth, 94, 
96. 

America's Foreign Policy, 20, 
102-114. 

America’s Foreign Policy, De¬ 
parture From, 20. 

American Idea, 123, 124. 
American Soldier, 200, 202. 
American View, 139, 205-219. 
Analysis of Constitution, 21. 
Annex to Covenant, 230. 
Another League, 182. 
Appendix, 220-231. 

Arbitral Justice, 132. 
Arbitration, 30, 68, 145-147, 
226, Art. XV. 

Armenia, 73, 74. 

Armaments, 143-145, Art. VIII. 
Armistice, 7. 

Articles Commented Upon— 
Article I, 51, 142, 144. 
Article III, 139. 

Article IV, 140, 142. 

Article V, 141. 

Article VI, 143. 

Article VII, 62, 142. 

Article VIII, 143, 144. 
Article IX, 143. 

Article X, 38, 39, 64-67, 180, 

212 . 

Article XI, 62. 


Article XII, 146, 179, 180. 
Article XIII, 30, 68, 146, 
179. 

Article XIV, 127. 

Article XV. 142, 146, 179. 
Article XVI, 62, 116, 117, 

142, 145, 179. 

Article XIX, 37, 130. 

Article XX, 121. 

Article XXI, 37, 54, 57, 61, 
125, 

Article XXII, 72, 74. 

Article XXIII, 68, 121, 125, 

143, 144. 

Article XXIV, 130, 143. 
Article XXV, 30. 

Article XXVI, 141. 
Assembly, 48, Art. II, III. 
Australia, 157. 

Austria, 182. 

Axioms, International, 209, 

210 . 

B 

Balfour, 10. 

Bankers, 14. 

Bargains, 216. 

Barthou, M., 208. 

Bass, John F., 66. 

Belgium, 140. 

Bolshevism, 90, 136, 123. 
Bolshevists, 123. 

Bonaparte, Napoleon, 184. 
Borah, Senator, 14, 15, 33, 66. 
Bourgeois, 11. 

Bosporus, 153. 

Brazil, 140. 

Breaking Mothers’ Hearts, 219. 
British Commons, 206. 

British Delegation, Peace Con¬ 
ference, 57, 59. 

British Empire, Six Votes, 157. 
Bryan, Wm. Jennings, 30. 
Bryce, Viscount James, 94. 
Burdens, World’s, 212. 

Bureau, Labor, 121. 

Bureaus, International, 126. 

C 

Canal, 164. 

Canal, Kiel, 153. 

Canal, Panama, 153. 

Canada, 157. 



234 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


Capital, League, 119. 

Century , Nineteenth , 11. 

Century, Twentieth, Humanity, 
181. 

Central Europe, 181. 

China, 148, 156, 216. 

Chinese, 156. 

Civil War, 3,16. 

Cleveland, Grover, 106, 150. 

Clemenceau, Premier, 11, 205. 

Commission, British, 10, 11. 

Commission, French, 10, 11. 

Comments on First Constitu¬ 
tion, 13, 17-27. 

Comments on First Constitu¬ 
tion, Analysis of, 21. 

Comments on Revised Constitu¬ 
tion, 47-77. 

Commons, British, 206. 

Commonwealth, American, 
Bryce’s, 94, 96. 

Commerce, 125. 

Constitution of United States, 
25, 84, 100. 

Constitution of United States, 
Amendments to, 27. 

Constitution, Violated, 64. 

Council, Executive, 31. 

Council, The, 48, 62, 139, 140. 

Combination, League and 
Treaty, 79. 

Combination, Senator Knox, 
Against, 83. 

Composition of League, 138, 
139. 

Composition of League, by Re¬ 
ligions, 154. 

Composition of League, by 
Races, 154. 

Congressional Government, 96, 
97. 

Constantinople, 73. 

Constitutionality Un-, 
of League Claims, 64, 76, 
169. 

Control by League, 71. 

Corriere Della Sera, 54. 

Cost of League, 159. 

Covenant, 190, 220-231. 

Covenant, Annex to, 230. 

Covenant, Revised, 47-77. 

Covenant Unconstitutional, 76, 
169, 171. 

Conference, Hae-ue, 61. 

Counter League, 182. 

Criticism, 20. 


Cummins, Senator, 41. 

Curzon, Lord, 10-12. 

D 

Delayed Treaty, 87. 

Demands, Amend or Reject, 28. 
Democracy, 136. 

Denmark, 116, 139. 
Denationalization, 145, 153. 
Despotism, League, 197. 

Dewey, Admiral, 151. 

Doctrine, Monroe, 37, 53, 55, 
150, 151. 

Doctrine, Washington’s, Not 
Transient, 36. 

Documents Distinct, 79. 
Documents Interlaced, 79. 
Domestic Affairs, 71, 162. 
Drummond, Sir James Eric, 
143, 230. 

Echo de Paris , 206. 

Economic Theories, 124. 

Edda, 95. 

Entangled Documents, 87, 89. 
Entanglements, 103, 106, 110, 
162. 

Europe, 181, 190. 

European Opinion, 205-210. 
Expense of League, 159-162. 
Ex-President, 14, 28. 

F 

Farewell Address, Washing¬ 
ton’s, 103. 

Fighting Machine, 145, 178. 
Firth, J. B., 10, 11. 

Foreign Alliances, 102. 

Foreign Entanglements, 162. 
Foreign Policy, American, 102- 
104. 

Foreign Relations Committee, 
95. 

Fortnightly Review, 10. 
Frelinghuysen, Senator, 41. 

G 

Gambler’s Risk, 199. 
Geographical Separation, 
America’s 103-108. 

George, David Lloyd, 207. 
George Washington University, 
132. 

Germany, 182-189. 

Germany in League, 188. 
Government. 

Government, American, Idea, 
123-125. 


INDEX 


235 


Government, Over-, 117. 

Government, Super-, 72, 118, 
159 * 

Government, Super-World, 137, 
141. 

Government, Congres¬ 
sional (Wilson’s), 96, 97. 

Greece, 140. 

Guarantee Territory, 38, 67, X. 

H 

Hague, 160, 203. 

Hague Conference, 61. 

Hague Conference Court, 127. 

Hague Conference Reserva¬ 
tions, 61. 

Hamilton, Alexander, 105. 

Harvey, George, 16. 

Harts, Albert Bushnell, 166. 

Hearts, Mother’s Breaking, 
219 

Hill, David Jayne, 10, 12, 66, 
74, 132. 

Hills, Lawrence, 207. 

Holland, 139. 

Holy Alliance, 150. 

Humanity, 20th Century, 181. 


Immigration, 150. 

Imperialism, League, 133, 135. 
Imperialistic, League, 197, 215, 
219. 

Independence of Nation, 75, 
214. 

Independence, League Destroys, 
113. 

Independence, Loss of, 113,114, 
166, 167, 171. 

Independence, President’s View 
of Loss, 113. 

Index, 232. 

Independent America, Best, 
204. 

India, 157. 

Industrial Control, 124, 125. 
Infamous, 66. 

Internal Affairs, 72, 121. 
International Axioms, 209, 210. 
International Law, 30, 31. 
International Affairs, 71. 
International Bureaus, 126. 
Internationalism, 3, 140. 
Internationalize, 153. 
International Super-State, 118. 
Isolated, 195. 

Isolated, Not, 214. 


J 

Japan, 148-152, 156. 

Japanese, 156. 

Japan vs. United States, 149. 

Jefferson, Thomas, 105. 

Johnson, Andrew, 106. 

Johnson, Senator Hiram W., 
41. 

Justice, Arbitral, 32. 

Justiciable Questions, 32. 

K 

Kaiser, 128, 151. 

Kiel Canal, 153. 

Knot Can Be Cut, 90. 

Knox, Senator P. C., 35, 50, 
55, 76, 83, 85. 

L 

Labor, 36, 69, 70, 121, 164. 

Labor, Bureau, 121, 122. 

La Liberte, 208. 

Law, International, 30. 

Lausanne, Stephen, 62. 

League of Nations, 7, 9, 70, 
78. 

League of Nations, Not a, 116- 
120, 159. 

League of Nations, Not an 
Entity, 7. 

League of Nations, Nation’s 
Danger, 7. 

League of Nations, Opposition 
to, 10. 

League of Nations, Power of, 
64. 

League of Nations, Support 
for, 10. 

League of Nations, Mechan¬ 
ism, 138-157. 

League of Nations, Senate 
Protest, 43, 44. 

League of Nations, What It 
Is, 115-137. 

League of Nations, Cost, 159. 

League of Nations, Provoca¬ 
tive, 179. 

League of Nations, Will It 
Prevent War? 172-191. 

League of Nations and the 
United States, 158-171. 

League of Nations, Effect on 
the United States, 158, 215, 
219. 

League of Nations Destroys 
Nationality, 


236 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


League of Nations Destroys 
National Independence, 

League of Nations Destroys 
Independence, 112-114. 

League of Nations, Unconsti¬ 
tutional Claims, 76. 

League of Nations, Radically 
Wrong, 77. 

League of Nations, a Govern¬ 
ment, 159, 212, 219. 

League of Nations, a Super- 
Government, 72. 

League of Nations, a world- 
Government, 117, 159. 

League of Nations, a War 
Machine, 133, 178. 

League of Nations, Not Homo¬ 
geneous, 215. 

League of Nations, Tainted, 
217. 

League of Nations, Members, 
231. 

League of Nations, Nations 
Supposed to be in, 138, 139. 

League of Nations, Nations 
Not in, 139. 

League of Nations, Religions 
in, 154. 

League of Nations, Races in, 
154. 

League and Treaty Distinct, 

78. 

League and Treaty Interlaced, 

79. 

League, Capital, 119. 

League, United States Should 
Reject, 199, 219. 

League to Enforce Peace, 14, 
28. 

Lese Majeste, No. 101. 

Lodge, Senator H. C., 35, 42, 
44. 

Love Feast, Peace Conference, 
Not, 197. 

Lowell, President, 24, 29. 

Lowrey, Dwight M., 129-131. 


M 

Madison, President James, 105. 
Mandate for America, 73. 
Mandatories, 37, 134. 
Mandatory Control, 72, 73, 74, 
126. 

Matin, Le, 62, 206. 

Mechanism and Working of the 
League, 138-157. 


Monroe, President, 105. 

Monroe Doctrine, 37, 53, 55, 
150, 151. 

Monroe Doctrine, Interpreta¬ 
tion of, 55, 56, 58, 59. 

Monroe Doctrine, Hon. Elihu 
Root On, 60. 

Monroe Doctrine, Lausanne’s 
Comment, 62. 

Mower, Paul Scott, 209. 

N 

Napoleon, 1.83. 

Napoleon, Louis, 150. 

Nationalism, 3, 117, 140. 

Nations, 7. 

Nations, League of, 7, 9. 

Nations in League, Supposed 
to Be, 138, 231. 

Neutrality, 134. 

Neutrals, No, 134, 135. 

New Zealand, 157. 

Nineteenth Century, 11. 

Norway, 116, 139. 

O 

Opinion, British, 207. 

Opinion, European, 205-210. 

Opinion, French, 207. 

P 

Panama Canal, 164. 

Paper Signed By Senators, 43. 

Paper, Bought, 15. 

Parliament, British, 206, 207. 

Parliament, French, 207. 

Parties in Arbitration, Ex¬ 
cluded, 146, 147, Art. XV, 
226. 

Partnership, 166. 

Paul Pry, 139. 

Peace Conference, 7, 8, 12, 17, 
43, 44, 78, 81, 197, 215. 

Peace Conference, Effect of, 
198. 

Peace Conference, Not Love 
Feast, 197. 

Peace Conference, Cannot 
Bind, 88-91. 

Peace Commissioners, 7, 8, 18. 

Peace Delegation, 209. 

Pepper, George Wharton, 49, 
50. 

Poindexter, Senator, 39. 

Policy, America’s Policy, 103- 
114. 


INDEX 


237 


Power of League, 118-128. 
President, The, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 
24, 33, 92, 93, 217. 

Preventing War, 172-191. 
Protest of Senators, 43, 44. 
Problems, Present, 12. 
Propaganda, 13, 14, 192. 
Provocative League, 179. 
Prussia, 183. 

Q 

Quaker, 178. 

Questions, Justiciable, 32. 
Questions, Judicial, 32. 
Questions, Labor, 69, 70. 

R 

Races in League, 154. 

Racial Equality, 148. 

Reed, Senator James A., 41, 
154-157. 

Reed, Senator, on Races, 154. 
Religions in League, Reed, 154, 
215. 

Reservotions, Hague, 61. 
Reservations, Algeciras, 61. 
Resolutions, Lodge’s, Against 
League, 43. 

Resolutions, Knox’s, Against 
Combination o f Covenant 
and Treaty, 85, 86. 

Review, Fortnightly , 10. 
Review, North American, 16. 
Revised Covenant, 47, 220-231. 
Revised Covenant, the Same, 
76. 

Rhine, 190. 

Risk, Gambler’s, 199. 

Roosevelt, President, 151. 

Root, Elihu, 30, 60, 65. 

S 

Sacrifice, 168, 213. 

Saturday Review, 209. 
Scandinavian Powers, 116, 
139. 

Secretariat, 142. 

Secretary General, First, 142, 
230, Art. VI. 

Senate, United States, 13, 32, 
92-101. 

Senate, Bryce’s View, 94. 
Senate, Webster’s View, 93. 
Senate, in Treaty Making, 93, 
98. 

Senate, Duty of, 90, 91, 99. 


Senate, Duty toward, 90. 
Senate, Rights and Powers, 
92-101. 

Senate, Cannot Go Contrary 
to the Constitution, 100. 
Senate, Paper, 43, 44. 

Senate, Not to be Coerced or 
Cajoled, 91. 

Senators Protest League, 43- 
45 . 

Separated, Nations, 103, 106, 
195, 196. 

Sieyes, 11. 

Shantung to Japan, 216, 217. 
Sherman, Senator, 33, 66. 
Socialism, 123, 124. 

Smuts, General, 130. 

Soldier, American, 200, 202. 
Spectator, London, 208. 
Sovereign, Own, 194. 
Sovereignty, 75, 112, 113, 169. 
Sovereignty, Lost, 113, 114, 
137. 

South Africa, 157. 

Sun, The, New York, 16, 49, 
58, 59, 170. 

Soviets, 136. 

Spain, 140. 

Sweden, 116, 139. 

Swiss Confederation, 116. 
Switzerland, 116. 

Sydenham, Lord, 11. 

T 

Taft, Ex-President, 28. 

Tainted League, 217. 

Tariff, 37, 126. 

Trade, 37, 163. 

Trades, 216. 

Trading, 216, 217, 218. 

Traitor, 213. 

Transcript, Boston, 60. 
Treason, 66, 100, 213. 

Treaties to Be Registered, 126, 
Arts. XVIII, XX, XXIV. 
Treaty, League Delayed, 87. 
Treaty, Making, 92-101. 
Treaty, Amending, 96. 

Treaty and League Distinct, 
78. 

Treaty of Peace, 84, 93. 
Tribune, Chicago, 16. 

Tribune, New York, 207. 
Turkey, 73, 74. 

Turks, 73, 74. 

Twentieth Century Humanity, 
181. 


238 THE LEAGUE THE NATION’S DANGER 


u 

Unconstitutional Assumptions 
of League, 76. 

United States and League, 158- 
171. 

United States of America, 7. 

United States Called to War, 
170. 

United States Can Do More 
Outside the League, 143. 

United States, Independence 
of, 75. 

United States Must Rule It¬ 
self, 3. 

United States No Gain, All 
Loss, 165, 168. 

United States Only One Vote, 
147. 

United States Sovereignty, 75. 

University, George Washing¬ 
ton, 132. 

V 

Vardaman, Senator, 41. 

Venezuelan Dispute, 151. 

View, American, 211-219. 

Vigilance, Eternal, 3. 

Votes, 63, 141. 


W 

Wadsworth, Senator, 39. 
Washington, 102. 

Washington’s Doctrine not 
Transient, 37. 


Washington’s Farewell Ad¬ 
dress, 103. 

Washington, George, Univer¬ 
sity, 132. 

Washington, Still Right, 107, 
108. 

Wall Street, 14. 

War, 7, 64, 133, 170, 172. 

War, New Methods, 184. 

War, League Will Not Pre¬ 
vent, 172-191. 

War, World- 7. 

Webster, Daniel, on Senate 
and Senators, 217. 

Weekly , Harvey’s, 16. 

Williams, Senator, 217. 

Wilson, President, Address, 
108. 

Wilson Endorses Washing¬ 
ton’s Policy, 108, 110. 

Wilson, Woodrow, 108. 

Wilson, Against Foreign Al¬ 
liances, 110. 

Wilson, 9, 28 97. 

Withdrawal, 22, 51, 52, 214. 

Withdrawal, Not, 214, 215. 

What is the League, 115-137. 

White, William Allen, 136. 

World, Is It Better, 180, 181. 

World, Heart of, 218. 

World, Helping, 201, 204. 

World, Not Abandoning, 196, 
197. 




































✓ 


































V' vw/ \W * 

C »‘S ^ k 1 •« ^o A c 0 " " <• .0*^ . • k * * *• 


r . 





*. ++ * fate \ t / •- 

iu v^ v :^ 15 S^: ^ v 

</P ^vp ° * C.*' '<j ‘ .. 

* 0? A 0> *v -va.VK * A* V>, • kk/sa^vi ♦ Ay tfT 

» A/ <4* * \ ^ V '& A* 4* * 

*cr *•. * * A <> ♦/tvT* g* '• 

cr .•‘At*, o a 4 *% ,o v .♦‘A!* o 0 a- . 




C'o < 

<V *t* Jz 

V t **V'* c\ 

:•. % *♦ 'fM%- \ $ 

v . 

;• # ^f* 






r oV 




"o V 



•• ^ •'^SGF K *°* *°^ 

°* '••"•* A 0 ’ %'*•■'•' A* \ '*•-^' a0° ^ '^•’ - 

O. *<y ♦ »*•* *> V *L^L% c\ <<y •!••- > V 

I* *p. V .61 JS . • x /» * * r A X v *• 

r * J&V&W/y ))° •■ ,|\t' * 


I «. X V<* 



vA 


* ytV > ° 1 



^ V 


• aV*^, •* 

* 4* % • 



^ A 



• a*v 

;* <*v ^ 


<j5 ***» * 

*♦ > o V"'^. <> 

’*•'' V* S °<^ * • - 0 A 0 ^ 

v ^ V 1 . >T> » 

• ^ ♦ 
r <J> v 


^ Ox 

I » »• 


.<* ^>/V 




* ' ^c> o 

‘ ^ ^ 



<0 V '-3 ■<■•• 

°o 


* aV-^* 

■/ ^ ^ • 



__.' #■ 

4* 4 . ^C4xr % * . h 

" a <y 

^ v V .*jy* 

• ^ ,<£ 
r >v 


° ^ A^ * 

• **<? • 


« -5^ o 


* «£’ ^ o' 1 

' ,<y * 





*'7V»* .0^ O ••.!« A <. 

^ . 0 ^ t « w '* <• "^b ^ o°'s ^ 




'•’• • .0- v **".’•■ .**■' '®j. '*»t»* A o' V ‘*‘rr.-• < 

c\ ,<'«. v v »•’>* c\ .n v ,»• o, V 

\ \/ .m; •» \/ . 

* ^ v \ -Ik ; /\ *•*“♦* «* /\ : 

^..■.. < V’*\ o 4 ° .f.\ .-..^ 

••:' ,*»;• \/.mV *‘ ‘ 


^ • 













*0 V •*»’• <<y °^ # •.• 9 ^ 

!' V »*v% . 0 ^ 



0 ^ x^ 


1* A** *■ 

°. * ■ 


^ A^' 

^ 0 / 


*'•• -+ o 

• \ /' .' 

; °vp ^ 

.0* 'o. "•.»• A <. ss^ 

0^ . • fc 1 * ♦ ^O A a 0 “ a ♦ <£, 

. ■* O *r__, r ~ jl »^_/r7>, V o x lt , 

"*0 v^ ^o 4 ^ ^ «' 



<■. *♦ 7 V»* . 0 T o. '«..* A <_. 

°!^‘*» , 0 ^ .•‘'•■* * 0 , .**•. *5 


0 ^0 * 7 ^ 

'^- ••' , ^P' ^ *0^**7^?* ^0' 'V *■»'•!* . 

*. \ / .Wa% ^ A- \ & .>Va' ^ A 

f- T! :p|- W ^ W 





.. 




* 










a 

* <y* 

«6 ^ 

♦ > C °* •l‘*U.** f 

*A 0 < ■! 


■* «5 


• / ■» 





o iP v^> _ 

♦ tv. v _ *'\JI\\NNS> % v> <r> * <£syyy]\}jw * 

VV^V*"‘V 0 ° -o — \ ###T, V 0- 

;»: \/ .*)& ft 

<& *V VvMW** A v *^ ^IlHir » c*^ A-* „> 

y « A v ^ **N«$S &*% 4 oV ^ 4 ' » # ^ 

« 0 V * 0 , *• • * * A 

o* *• v J>.!* c* aJ^ o 0,r *4 

*u a' .'^wcx*. -v < v igtife!* .» y ''^-w* 

.* a °x. 


^ *' 


• * ° £° V *•*!• V '%. **•••** <0° *vOy* % ' ^ 

i» .Ap i* * ®* / V »* “ v <b <v *' * *0 \j* • 

Va* .4¥a\ ^ a* /* 


<*>** 
v <#> 




* .n 

<* */77J.* A * 

••■*♦. ^ f o* ,.»••. *< 

*y. _ v ♦ 



^ • 



» / * 



.' a* % °.v 

o.T® A ' <* ♦7 MU ’T** av ^ *, € 

O A* „ ° * • 0 ^ A v v # « 

» O ^ *r_ <*V .♦ — - c -'- 


1 ^ %> **rr-*’ a 

V >l/w\ C‘ ^ »«•©- 4> 




V / .* 

<p 9 


* ** % -MW; <r \ 

<* *'VVT* A* 



i: ^ : 

C vP ' T/»m«\>» - x * * w,Nvvi_it/^/A ■ ^ > 

C~ nP* ® 
d; ‘ 

<#» • <£'£) * 

*. "''®, ,**1**, o*' 1 »•* '• J o, A v .•**, 'b. 

^ .\,^n\*. V « 0 Sjem;- A .*^c. ^ 


w l # 


■ ■ % # • - • ° *P ; 
V v cv jy >' 

A ^ A < 

vP V * 

• v>>^ - ’ 

* V % \ ^ 

. * ® • I * 4 *\ */ 





... • o> *%> *^* ^ ^ 'T^c* o- v y 

<0 » 1 * # 4 ^ V> • • * * ^ <jv f. - i»o. ,/ *> • 

\J :£&>%. ^ y 

y^ V ‘\ ^ v % \-H/, 

<u •*•’ 4° '••** A <-. VTvr* .O* - \ *. 

.•A*« c 0 ' .•“** °, A. 4 ^ •••*. '•*. 0^ .»••. "*0 

^ ^ ^ • A oR/7^b> < * ° J 1 ®’ *eC^Vv^ # ^ C ■» o 

-*^V. -^o** - 







* ^ -ARS^"* v 

<r ^ * 

• A ^ o " v \V«^a 7' 

.* q& -4> ^ \ 

• -o 5 ? ^ o 0 ^ '''kk- * a o ,-^ .“«."*♦ 

b 'mfex. ;Smx- > 


'o V" 





° ^9 ^ - v 

k y v*> * 

• • 0 A 0 ^ # ^ * • 0 A 0 ^ •'' kf 

4p V • t *®- ^ V % k^% A 0^ f’*®# ^ ^ 



Vy • 




















